NationStates Jolt Archive


BV-17 Reiter Main Battle Tank

Verdant Archipelago
13-03-2005, 11:36
OOC I'm taking advantage of fluid time here to get the design out there for coments and critiques. I've critiqued enough people now that I expect that this will be ripped appart. Good! That's what I want. In any case, here is what my country will be churning out in 50 years or so. Please mention any references to Ocelots... this tank is an upgraded version of a vehicle i made in a previous incarnation as Chardonay.

IC

BV-17A Reiter Main Battle Tank
Weight: 70 metric tons
Length: 9.5 metres (including gun)
Width: (without skirts) 4 metres
Height: 2.8 metres

Following in a series of main battle tanks designed by the Verdant Archipelagan Design Staff, the BV-17 Reiter is the first tank able to compete in the international market, while still retaining the features required for service in the odd environment presented by the Archipelago.

The Guns

Main Gun: Krupp Armaments AT239 100mm ECT cannon.
Standard projectile range: 4km
ERGM projectile range: 15km
Ammunition capacity: 54 rounds
Mortar: Swansen Armaments Mk 23 50mm mortar
Standard projectile range: 2.5 km
20 rounds
AAMG: Swansen Armaments MG-10G 15mm remotely aimed machinegun
1000 rounds

The main gun of the BV-17 Reiter MBT is a 100mm electromagnetically rifled ECT gun with a thermal sleeve 60 calibers long, but with the powder charge of a 125mm cannon. Because of the truly phenomenal velocities this shell can reach (approaching 3km/s) the gun is capable of defeating any conventional armour protection with APDS-FS round despite the small size of the actual projectile. Other munitions carried by the Ocelot include extended-range base-bleed HESH rounds for NLOS bombardment, HEAT shells for dealing with lightly armoured targets, HVHESH shells with frangible casings for bunkerbusting and degrading the peripherals of enemy AFVs, flechette canisters for repulsing infantry, armour-peircing-frangible rounds for engaging aircraft and light vehicles, and a special 5mm metalstorm canister for MOUT.

The Reiter’s autoloader, which can fire off its entire load in 20 seconds, carries six rounds with an additional 18 ready fire rounds in the turret bustle, and 30 more in the body.

The main gun is perfectly capable of engaging aircraft, and in trials against evading subsonic drones, it took at most four rounds to generate a kill 80% of the time using purely optical tracking.

For tanks with greater protection than is reasonable, the Ocelot can fire the gun-launched top-attack laser-guided Kontos missile, which has a maximum range of 5km and can penetrate 1000 mm of top armor. The sole drawback of the Kontos missile is its regrettably short range, which make it impractical for engaging helicopters. The smaller Assagai missile can also be gun launched, with a range of over 15km, a short flight time, but it can only penetrate 500mm of armour and has no top attack capabilities. On the other hand, it is able to engage helicopters and slow flying aircraft with a reasonable degree of success

Because of the metalstorm canisters that can be loaded in the main gun, the standard coaxil machinegun has been removed. However, super-mounted on the turret is a 15mm machinegun. It can be remotely fired from within the tank, or manually if the tank is unbuttoned.

The final weapon system of the Reiter is the automatic 50mm mortar mounted on the rear of the turret, allowing indirect fire on infantry positions, and the deployment of flares and smoke beyond the normal range of the obscuration equipment usually carried.

Propulsion
Maximum speed: 70 km/hour sprint, 50km/h cruising
Powerplant: Veragrad Mining Solutions 1000kW Hybrid Diesel/Electric Turbine
Fuel: 1,400 litres
Unrefueled Range 700 kilometres

As in the Merkava, the engine is mounted in the bow, both to protect it from fire, and provide protection to the crew. The BV-17 uses a hybrid diesel/electric engine system. Power is provided by an extremely efficient 1000 kW diesel turbine which operates constantly at low revs to deliver maximum torque and peak efficiency. The turbine turns a generator, which charges batteries, which deliver power to the electric motors on every drive wheel. Although this means that standard maximum power is reduced, the strategic speed is much higher than comparable pure diesel MBTs. Additionally, should more power be required, the turbine can engage into the drive wheels directly along with the electronic motors, delivering 1500 kW. Further, the tank can run purely on battery power, allowing it to function when completely submerged. When on battery power, the only sound is the muffled clanking of the rubberized treads, a far cry from the loud roar of petroleum engines. The tank can perform 10 minutes of combat maneuvering on battery power.


Systems and Crew
Cohen Optics Laser Detection System Mk 2
Cohen Optics Target Detection and Acquisition System 17
Three Integrated Electronics Mk 3 Combat Analysis Systems
Integrated Electronics Combat Analysis Suite Pro IV
Integrated Electronics Datalinque I
Cohen Optics Communications Array 3

One of the more innovative things about the Reiter is the command interface. The outside of the hull and turret are studded with 25 small 4.1 megapixel digital cameras which provide the crew with real-time images of what's going outside the tank without using small and uncomfortable periscopes (though the periscopes are retained. These cameras are recessed into the armor and can be protected with a retractable armored shutter, and are very difficult to destroy. There is one camera along-side the main gun, one on the 15mm machinegun, and several on strategic parts of the hull and turret. These images are accessible by all crewmembers on the several MFDs in each fighting position. Additionally, each crew member can gain access to the information that the others have... the driver could see how many rounds are left in the main gun, the gunner could see the strategic map, and so on. Even more revolutionary, all the controls are fiber optically controlled... this is a 'drive by light tank'. What this means is that should one crewmember be incapacitated, another can take over his job without switching positions. The commander or gunner could drive, the driver could work the guns, and so on. This means that it is possible the tank could be fought with only a single crew-member. THIS IS NOT RECOMENDED. The crew has remained at 3 because division of labor is VITAL to a tank's success on the battlefield.

There is another interesting function of this tank... in the rear, there is a large cargo compartment, capable of holding a fireteam of 6 men. This compartment also has MFDs, but they are generally locked and are unable to actually give commands to the tank unless massive systems failures occur or a crewmember gives permission. Small modifications turn the Reiter into an effective command tank with a total crew of 6, replacing some of the cargo space with aditional computers and communication equipment. Unfortunately, use of this compartment requires the deletion of 20 rounds of hull stored ammunition.

There are, of course, other sensors than the digital cameras. A state of the art IR sensor mounted in a ball turret on the turret, passive radar detectors, a laser designator and rangefinder, laser detection sensors that can differentiate between more than 1000 different targeting and rangefinding lasers, millimeter band radar, and even an experimental acoustic system. One of the more amusing capabilities is for a Midge class dirigible drone to attach itself to the stern of the tank, and be remotely deployed to ‘see what’s beyond that next hill’.

For communications, the Reiter has the Integrated Electronics Datalinque I
system. This is a heavily encrypted broadband communications system with a range of about 500m, and rather high transfer speeds, allowing a platoon of tanks to share information. However, the Datalinque system is handled by an entirely separate computer, and there are no actual crosslinks between the communications server and the computer that governs the functioning of the tank, making it impossible for a remote user to gain control of the vehicle. While there is still the risk of eavesdroppers gaining access to privileged information or using radio direction finding equipment to find the tanks, the low power levels of the transmission and battle-encryption will make this rather difficult. Three other forms of communication are available to the standard version. First is a laser based communication system with an effective range of several kilometers based on atmospheric conditions. It has a high transfer rate and is completely undetectable, but is line of sight only. Second is the LAN port hidden in an armoured recess under the stern, which allows vehicles to be linked fiberoptically. This is usually used in static deployments, but a small spool can be added to allow very limited maneuvering. The LAN port is particularly useful for those company-wide Counter-Strike games while waiting for the green light. Finally, a software enhanced encrypted VHF radio can be used in emergencies when there is no satellite uplink in network range.

Protection
Armour Protection in Te RHA
Bow: KE 2500mm CE 2800mm
Flanks: KE 800 CE 1500
Stern: KE 400 CE 700
Top: KE 400 CE 1500
Dynamique Verdant Stacked Grenade Launcher
Dynamiqie Verdant hull mounted explosive devices
Dynamique Verdant Momentum Transfer Appliqué

There are several layers of protection to the Reiter. The best way not to get damaged is not to be detected. This is why so much effort has been put into muffling the IR and acoustic signatures of the tank. The acoustic muffling is quite effective, especially when running on battery power. IR reduction is less effective, but it is still runs cooler than most tanks.

Second layer of protection is in not being targeted. When targeting lasers are detected, canisters on the hull immediately deploy an anti-laser aerosol system that diffracts the laser and improves the chances of a miss. Additionally, the Ocelot is equipped with Metalstorm based smoke grenade dispensers. Smoke grenade is a bit of a misdenomer, the grenade obscures both visible and infrared frequencies. Chaff launchers were considered and discarded, because the thread from radar guided ATGMs is too small to take seriously; though chaff filled grenades CAN be fitted should they prove necessary.

Unlike most MBTs, the BV-17 does not normally carry ER armour... it is a liability when working with infantry. The infantry also do an excellent job of suppressing RPG teams. This does not mean that HEAT shells and missiles are not a threat, and we do deal with them. The Ocelot mounts ball-and-chain armor packages that prematurely detonate incoming shells. Several layers of reactive armor (not explosive) coats the outer hull. The outer layer is a MEXAS derivative, designed to neutralize shaped charge attacks. The second layer is made of a brittle ceramic which shatters on impact, robbing the shell of much of its energy and deforming the tip, potentially inducing yaw. Below that there is a layer of DU armour impregnated with carbon whiskers, and layers of standard ceramic and steel follow, honeycombed. Effective bow protection is equivalent to 2.5m of RHA. Should the tank be heading into a situation where heavy fire is expected, advanced momentum transfer explosive reactive armour can be added, but this is rare. Special attention has been given to the top of the tank, as far as armour goes. The commander's hatch has been designed to limit exposure to shrapnel and snipers, and the top's armor is sufficient to defeat most top attack missiles.

The tank can also be equipped with many small fragmentation explosives on the hull; when an ATGM is detected, an alarm warns nearby infantry, and an explosive detonates, showering the incoming missiles with fragments. The fragments are designed to be uniformly shaped and lose velocity quickly, giving them a kill radius of 3m, but supporting infantry are still suggested to take cover. The system can either be shut off by the tank commander, or manually activated to shred assaulting infantry.
Hogsweat
13-03-2005, 12:02
Looks alright. Maybe you werent' bullshitting us after all.
Verdant Archipelago
13-03-2005, 12:17
Bullshitting! Sir, the Verdant Archipelago Union does not BULLSHIT. , Prevaricate, mislead, deal in half truths, exagerate... perhaps. But surely not bullshit!
Strathdonia
13-03-2005, 15:21
Very very nice indeed. Top marks.

I particualrly like the gun, it's nice to see that style picking up in popularity
Footpads
13-03-2005, 19:13
Over the top armour values for a MT tank at a reasonable weight level, and HESH makes for a lousy artillery round, its a breaching charge and produces no shrapnel by itself, wich is the primary casualty producer. The more vertical approach vector of artillery won't allow for existant materiel or terrain to produce an efficient shrapnel plume, you need the round to carry that with itself.

Just use a standard HE-Frag, they're cheap too.

Also, I think that deleting the coax is a really, really bad idea.

:cool:
Azazia
13-03-2005, 19:29
Given the unique environmental conditions faced by the Verdant Archipelago Union and the United Kingdom of Azazia's own Royal Crown Colony on nearby islands, the Ministry of Colonial Defence has authorized the procurement of several dozen of these fine pieces of combat technology to defend the Crown's territory. On a minor note, it is good to see the Swansen family business expanding its operation into such a successful line of business.

If possible, the UKA would like to begin negotiations for the possible procurement of these fine vehicles given our historically close-relationship and the joint trials and tribulations our peoples and our soldiers must endure daily to thrive as they do in the harsh environment of the archipelago. We are more than willing, of course, to offer equitable prices in currency, goods, or services.

Joseph Danton
Secretary for Procurement
Ministry of Colonial Defence

Ooc: again, I don’t think I need to say it, but very good work. I too would design a separate tank for the… unique conditions on the islands, but realistically since the Crown Colony occupies such small amount of land, it makes more sense to merely purchase better-suited units than divert funds to a separate enterprise. Perhaps also it might be possible in the future to have some joint projects between the Design Staff and some of the UKA’s own arms companies. I would think it could yield some powerful results. But again, very good work.
Red Tide2
13-03-2005, 19:43
OOC:100mm seems a little... small for a main battle tank. The Abrams(as well as most European tanks) sport 120mm main guns.
The Macabees
13-03-2005, 19:51
OOC:100mm seems a little... small for a main battle tank. The Abrams(as well as most European tanks) sport 120mm main guns.

[OOC: But the Abrams doesn't sport a 120mm ETC gun, it sports a 120mm Rhinemetal smoothbore.]
The Macabees
13-03-2005, 19:52
[OOC: Also, I heard that MetalStorm can't be cooled...is that true? That's the reason I didn't put it on the Pz. XI.]
Omz222
13-03-2005, 19:54
OOC: Well, with the 100mm, keep in mind that he did say that the power is equivalent to a conventional 125mm smoothbore. After all, especially for a MBT, ETC guns are typically heavier and more demanding than their conventional counterparts.

Anyways though, this seems like an excellent vehicle. Depending on the cost of this, I might buy a batch for my military units (though unfortunately I have enough tanks in my regular Army and Navy services). The ability to carry infantry forces alongside is probably the highest selling-point.
Soviet Bloc
13-03-2005, 20:40
OOC- It has a theoretical firing rate of 18 rounds per minute and you get after me for having 15-16... But then I think it's because you thought I meant it can actually fire off that much per minute, when in reality its hampered by the fact it only carries six rounds (I think, maybe it was eight) on the autoloader main feed belt. Figured I'd clear that up for ya.


Anyways, very nice, but can it really fit a six-man team in the rear? I'm guessing it'd be cramped especially since you have electric motors on every road wheel (may have read that wrong) and I'm guessing at where the main drive gears would have been on a conventional tank. And you need a place for the batteries [Which can't go near the engine since I'm assuming that's where the driver would be]. But, I could be wrong.


Once again, a very nice tank, I especially like its compatibility to infantry forces, mine would not work good in any role with infantry support, or we'd get more friendly kills than enemy courtesy of all the reactive systems. So I think I just may buy some of these, I'll have to think about it.
Buttenhausen
13-03-2005, 20:47
The kingdom of buttenhausen would like to modernize it's army....i'll take 2500 of them
No endorse
13-03-2005, 21:15
Bow: KE 2500mm CE 2800mm
Flanks: KE 800 CE 1500
Stern: KE 400 CE 700
Top: KE 900 CE 1500
A meter is 100 cm, and 1000 mm. This means that (assuming I understand these numbers) you have 2.5 meters of bow armor, .8 M of flank armor, .9 meters of top armor, and .4 meters of stern armor. 2 meters is over the height of an average male... it equates to 6 feet 8 inches.

Is this correct? Or am I confused?
The Macabees
13-03-2005, 21:16
A meter is 100 cm, and 1000 mm. This means that (assuming I understand these numbers) you have 2.5 meters of bow armor, .8 M of flank armor, .9 meters of top armor, and .4 meters of stern armor. 2 meters is over the height of an average male... it equates to 6 feet 8 inches.

Is this correct? Or am I confused?

[OOC: Those are probably RHA values.]
No endorse
13-03-2005, 21:36
Rha?
The Macabees
13-03-2005, 21:44
[OOC: The best example I can think of, which I actually am sure about, is the T-34. The T-34 although it had a medium armored rating (for WWII) the angle it was sloped at actually gave it a higher armored rating...so it's actual literal armor rating as opposed to the armor rating it actually 'works' at...wow I really can't explain it...]
No endorse
13-03-2005, 21:54
So it's a measure of the effective stregnth of the armor at the angle its at, not the thickness of the armor or its stregnth when a plate is shot at a perpendicular angle?
AfrikaZkorps
13-03-2005, 21:54
Rolled something or another, pretty much its equivlant if it were all steel.
Buttenhausen
13-03-2005, 21:56
[OOC: But the Abrams doesn't sport a 120mm ETC gun, it sports a 120mm Rhinemetal smoothbore.]
The abrams has 60% of it's parts from the german LeopardA2...also..it IS in fact an european tank
Verdant Archipelago
13-03-2005, 22:13
Ok, everyone. I'll deal with issues one at the time.

Footpads: Armour values aren't actually that over the top. This is a bit heavier than an abrams, carries a smaller engine, is slower, a smaller weapon. As well, because the VAU military is so small, we're willing to use more exotic materials in the hull of the tanks, since we have fewer to purchase.

Since HESH is a plastic explosive weapon, by encasing it in a thin fragmentation casing, you can get bothe effects, thoiugh I admit the indirect capability isn't what the tank is known for. The HESH round is guided, used mostly for bunker busting and killing light vehicles in areas the tank can't get to. And please remember, this isn't an artillery peice, it's a tank. This is a long range tank shell, not an infantry killing VT mortar bomb

Deteing the coax... is a compremise. We save a lot of room on ammunition this way, and the new metalstorm canister round does the same job. In the next version, the coax will probably be added again. Please remmeber, I'm not trying to make the tank the ubertanxor that pwns everything, it's an armoured vehicle that is the result of a lot of design compremises.

The Macabees: Metalstorm can't be cooled easily, that's true. WHich is why we use a metalstorm system as amunition. The metalstorm launcher is 100mm in diameter, has a small charge at the back, and is filled with 5mm roiunds. When the cannister is used up, or a target requiring larger rounds turns up, the canester is discharged from the gun, and a more apropriate shell is loaded.

SB, note I didn't actually mention how long it takes to reload the autoloader? While it can get off 6 shots in twenty seconds, it takes 50 seconds to reload the thing, leaving it with an effective rate of fire of less than 6 rounds a minute.

Yes, although the batteries require space, we're using a fairly small gas turbine (1300 hp equivelent) that can be made even smaller because of the complete deletion of the transmission and the fact that the engine only operates at that hp in the engine's 'sweet spot', which is where it always runs. Given that this tank is based on the Merkava IV, has a smaller gun, smaller engine, and carries fewer infantry, I don't think a single fire team is too gaudy.

Armour Protection in Te RHA
Bow: KE 2500mm CE 2800mm
Flanks: KE 800 CE 1500
Stern: KE 400 CE 700
Top: KE 900 CE 1500
Dynamique Verdant Stacked Grenade Launcher
Dynamiqie Verdant hull mounted explosive devices
Dynamique Verdant Momentum Transfer Appliqué

As you can see, the armour is in Thickness Equivelent RHA. THis is, of course, taking into account the extencive sloping, the highly effective NxRA which renders HEAT shells virtually impotent, ball and chain armour, and the ceramic applique armour that is only effective once in a certain location.

Please note that most ECT cannon will penetrate the bow armour with a lucky hit and should have no trouble going through the sides. LOSAT will go through the tank longways.

Bittenhousen: We require an end user certificate guarunteeing that the tanks will never be resold without our express permission, a guaruntee of the integrety of our intellectual property, and suggest you sign up for our combined- ammunition/maintenence programs. Also, be aware. At our current manuifacturing rate of 382 tanks a year, it will take seven years to fufill the contract, which will be worth $25 billion.

Thank you for all the compliments and criticism =) The more I get, the better I can make the next round of vehicles, so keep it coming. Those interested in purchasing the vehicle, remember it doesn't exist yet, and our manufacturing facilities are rather... limited. The VAU is topping out at a population of 30 million.
Verdant Archipelago
13-03-2005, 22:18
RHA stands for Rolled Homoginous Armour, which is a flat, solid peice of rolled high quality steel. It's a measurement used for determining the effective thickness of the armour. SInce my armour is made of advanced composites and ceramics, spaced, at an angle, and includes reactive elements, it's effective thickness is about 5 times what it would be normally.
Omz222
13-03-2005, 22:18
OOC: Hmm, I can understand that, though with your economy level and population I would say that it would be at least possible to produce a small batch... But since the design itself is there, if you are interested, we could have a technology exchange, especially if you are interested in aircraft (including interceptors, CAS, and medium bombers). Demand is high in both the Omzian Army and Militia for an infantry-friendly armoured vehicle, that is not only capable of deploying accompanying infantry in both "open" and urban environments, but also hopefully be capable of carrying militiamen and riot police.
Verdant Archipelago
13-03-2005, 22:22
the design, unfortunately, ISN'T there. the tank won't be designed for another 50 years, we're still recovering from our isolation period, where we didn't advance beyond steamtech. Azazia is pulling us out, but it will take some time to reach this level of sophistication... BV-1 through-16 to be precise =)
The Macabees
13-03-2005, 22:22
The Macabees: Metalstorm can't be cooled easily, that's true. WHich is why we use a metalstorm system as amunition. The metalstorm launcher is 100mm in diameter, has a small charge at the back, and is filled with 5mm roiunds. When the cannister is used up, or a target requiring larger rounds turns up, the canester is discharged from the gun, and a more apropriate shell is loaded.


[OOC: Do you think you could become my main provider of this? I would just buy production rights, if possible, but buying it in orders is much more realistic considering how it's done in the real world, and plus buying PR would just mean I would have to build more factory equipment.. :( .. and my nation is far too lazy to do that.]
Verdant Archipelago
13-03-2005, 22:29
[OOC: Do you think you could become my main provider of this? I would just buy production rights, if possible, but buying it in orders is much more realistic considering how it's done in the real world, and plus buying PR would just mean I would have to build more factory equipment.. :( .. and my nation is far too lazy to do that.]

WE can definately provide you with metalstorm devices. We use them fairly extencively... given our enviroment, high rates of fire are more important than durability or penetration. Metalstorm has a NUMBER of problems, cooling being the least of them. It's inaccurate, loud, has lousy range and penetration, and is bukly. But we use it because it's saturation abililties have to be seen to be believed. Our metalstorm mortar systems... which one man can carry, put 5 shells on the target in less than a second. Of course, after that, it's unusable ever again, but still... a platoon of infantrymen can emplace the mortars, fire them remotely, and assault a position that has just had 250 shells fall on it in less than a second. Saturation...
Buttenhausen
13-03-2005, 22:34
"We want to buy some BV-17 tanks....to be precise 2500..."

Johann Gambleputty
Secretary of Defence
Buttenhausen
Verdant Archipelago
13-03-2005, 22:49
"Excelent, our first non Commonwealth customer. Before we can fufill your order, certain things must be made clear. First, we require you fill out this end-user certificate guarunteeing that the tanks will not be resold without Krupp's express permission. Secondly, we require youi to guaruntee the integrety of our intelectual property; that is, you must promise not to reverse engineer nor permit the reverse engineering of any of our equipment.

Aditionally, we suggest you sign up for our Training, Supply, and Maintenence packages. If you do, we will supply personel for training your tankers and maintenence crews, will sell replacement parts and ammunition at a signifigant discount, and will perform any major overhauls at cost. The total cost of these packages adds $1 million to each tank, resulting in a total unit cost of $11.5 million and change.

The total price of the contract, assuming you purchase the packages, will be $25.8 billion dollars, and we will require 7 years to complete the final tank. Would you care to pick up the tanks yourself? there will be a small surcharge for delivery."

Guther Krupp
Chief Sales Representative, Krupp.
Omz222
13-03-2005, 22:53
the design, unfortunately, ISN'T there. the tank won't be designed for another 50 years, we're still recovering from our isolation period, where we didn't advance beyond steamtech. Azazia is pulling us out, but it will take some time to reach this level of sophistication... BV-1 through-16 to be precise =)
OOC: That seems fine, though it still seems that you are accepting orders anyways, as I'm still highly interested in a new heavily-armoured tank featuring lighter armaments but infantry-support capabilities. However, with the BV-1 to -16 comment, I'm assuming that you are going to design some WWII and Cold War-era tanks as well?
The Macabees
13-03-2005, 22:54
How much would each canister cost us? Or, perhaps a price in bulk would be best because if the wars the IADF don't resolve diplomatically we're going to need quite a few of them!
Buttenhausen
13-03-2005, 23:00
"Excelent, our first non Commonwealth customer. Before we can fufill your order, certain things must be made clear. First, we require you fill out this end-user certificate guarunteeing that the tanks will not be resold without Krupp's express permission. Secondly, we require youi to guaruntee the integrety of our intelectual property; that is, you must promise not to reverse engineer nor permit the reverse engineering of any of our equipment.

Aditionally, we suggest you sign up for our Training, Supply, and Maintenence packages. If you do, we will supply personel for training your tankers and maintenence crews, will sell replacement parts and ammunition at a signifigant discount, and will perform any major overhauls at cost. The total cost of these packages adds $1 million to each tank, resulting in a total unit cost of $11.5 million and change.

The total price of the contract, assuming you purchase the packages, will be $25.8 billion dollars, and we will require 7 years to complete the final tank. Would you care to pick up the tanks yourself? there will be a small surcharge for delivery."

Guther Krupp
Chief Sales Representative, Krupp.

"We accept...The tanks will be picked up by ourselves...wei will transfer the money as soon as possible.The money is on its way"

Johann Gambleputty
Secretary of defence
Buttenhausen
Verdant Archipelago
13-03-2005, 23:15
OOC: That seems fine, though it still seems that you are accepting orders anyways, as I'm still highly interested in a new heavily-armoured tank featuring lighter armaments but infantry-support capabilities. However, with the BV-1 to -16 comment, I'm assuming that you are going to design some WWII and Cold War-era tanks as well?

Fluid time. Gotta love it. THe development RP only really involves Azazia and possibly Praetonia and is progressing slowly (my fault entirely). Azazia is cool with me RPing as if we've finished development, and I have a LOT of ideas bursting to get into NS... =)

As for the tank... I've come to the conclusion that normal theory regarding armoured penetration and disruption of the rear has been largely discredited... and it really doesn't work in NS. The three nessisary componants of a tank are survivability, armament, and stratigic speed. And the infantry MUST keep up, tanks without infantry are useless. And by keeping them together, you reduce the need for infantry carried heavy weapons, since the tank does that job for them. It's really a sybiotic relationship... infantry tanks are the way to go.

It's also been shown that increasing the size of the gun doesn't nessisarly increase penetration when using KE weapons... in fact, the reverse is true. Barrel diameter only counts when useing CE weapons. 100mm is big enough for any reasonable direct fire mission, and the high velocity vastly improves penitration.

As for the previous versions, I've got concepts, but I don't know that I'll actually DESIGN them. I only have one design previous to the BV-17 actually on paper... wood fired iron box with a 6 pounder gun and six machineguns, max speed 5kph =)

Macabees... Good lord, I have no idea what would be reasonable. And yes, of course it would be in bulk. How about... $200 000 for a lot of 1000 rounds? I assume you'll be purchasing in bulk? I need to actually design the round..

Buttenhausen: Excelent. First shipment of 30 tanks will be completed in one month, and thirty one every month after that, apart from the last month, where 32 will be delivered.

Gunther Krupp
The Macabees
13-03-2005, 23:25
Databurst to Verdant Archipelago
That price seems suitable enough. We would like to purchase our first order of just a single package of a thousand rounds for the stated price of two hundred thousand United States Dollars. We will be testing these in the field soon enough around Malgeria and they are sure to come in handy. Do not fret because you will be making much money from our purchases of these rounds, and we promise that we will be back and our second order will make the first order make it seem as if it was for a practice round... indeed, it in fact was!
Lesser Scythia
13-03-2005, 23:32
Like Buttenhausen, our army is in need of professional training and modernized equipment. I would like to purchase a three loads of 750 MBT's, and schematics for the tank. Our nation would like to be added to a "mailing list", if you have such a thing. We will need updates for other arms dealings.
Verdant Archipelago
13-03-2005, 23:38
Databurst to Verdant Archipelago
That price seems suitable enough. We would like to purchase our first order of just a single package of a thousand rounds for the stated price of two hundred thousand United States Dollars. We will be testing these in the field soon enough around Malgeria and they are sure to come in handy. Do not fret because you will be making much money from our purchases of these rounds, and we promise that we will be back and our second order will make the first order make it seem as if it was for a practice round... indeed, it in fact was!

"If, sirs, you are interested, we also have a larger 125mm version. The 100mm version carries 250 5mm rounds, while the 125mm version carries 450 5mm rounds. Both can empty themselves in well under a second. We understand that these are unconventional round sizes, so we are willing to design a more standard caliber should you wish it, at no extra charge. (revanue from other sales will make up for the initial design cost)
Though both have theoretical rates of fire in excess of 1 million rpm, this isn't particularly useful, and can be dialed back to any rate you wish.
Verdant Archipelago
13-03-2005, 23:43
Like Buttenhausen, our army is in need of professional training and modernized equipment. I would like to purchase a three loads of 750 MBT's, and schematics for the tank. Our nation would like to be added to a "mailing list", if you have such a thing. We will need updates for other arms dealings.

Unless our production facilities are dramatically increased, we are currently maxed out production-wise for seven years, not expecting this kind of responce. However, in seven years, we can begin producing your order, which will only take two years to complete. Again, we request that you fill out this end user certificate and agree to protect our intelectual property.

The total cost of the contract will be $8.625 billion, and we look forward to dealing with you in the future. We will of course use this forum to announce any future developments, and will keep you abrest of new offerings.

Guther Krupp
Cheif Sales Representative, Krupp.
The Macabees
13-03-2005, 23:43
"If, sirs, you are interested, we also have a larger 125mm version. The 100mm version carries 250 5mm rounds, while the 125mm version carries 450 5mm rounds. Both can empty themselves in well under a second. We understand that these are unconventional round sizes, so we are willing to design a more standard caliber should you wish it, at no extra charge. (revanue from other sales will make up for the initial design cost)
Though both have theoretical rates of fire in excess of 1 million rpm, this isn't particularly useful, and can be dialed back to any rate you wish.

Hmm, sounds powerful! However, we rather stick with the 100mm for now and if we see that a more powerful MetalStorm canister is needed we will purchase the 125mm canister. We also have to take in mind that our mortar barrels need to be changed accordingly considering the size of the canister which can be a difficult logistical issue. However, thanks, they may come in handy later.
Verdant Archipelago
13-03-2005, 23:54
Hmm, sounds powerful! However, we rather stick with the 100mm for now and if we see that a more powerful MetalStorm canister is needed we will purchase the 125mm canister. We also have to take in mind that our mortar barrels need to be changed accordingly considering the size of the canister which can be a difficult logistical issue. However, thanks, they may come in handy later.

Power isn't quite the issue... these rounds won't fit larger or smaller guns. IF you use different caliber weapions, you need different calliber ammunition. You wouldn't fire a 125mm shell out of a gun bored for 75mm...
Novikov
14-03-2005, 00:09
What the hell, I'll join everybody else...

Nice job.
Arribastan
14-03-2005, 00:14
Are production rights avaliable for Tanks and Ammunition? We would pay a very healthy price for them.

~J.D. Alcanzar, Emperor of Arribastan
Verdant Archipelago
14-03-2005, 00:30
Are production rights avaliable for Tanks and Ammunition? We would pay a very healthy price for them.

~J.D. Alcanzar, Emperor of Arribastan

Production rights are available for both tank and ammunition. The (negoitiable) arrangement we have set up is 100x the unit price + 10% of the unit price for ever vehicle/round produced. So the designs cost 100x the unit price, and we recieve a 10% royalty. Please keep inform us of how many tanks you produce for accounting and advertising purposes.

Guther Krupp
Cheif Sales Representative, Krupp

Novikov: Thanks =)
Arribastan
14-03-2005, 00:39
Production rights are available for both tank and ammunition. The (negoitiable) arrangement we have set up is 100x the unit price + 10% of the unit price for ever vehicle/round produced. So the designs cost 100x the unit price, and we recieve a 10% royalty. Please keep inform us of how many tanks you produce for accounting and advertising purposes.

Guther Krupp
Cheif Sales Representative, Krupp

Novikov: Thanks =)
10 million-odd dollars each for a tank, 200,000 dollars for 1,000 rounds. Hmm.
How about 150 times each price and no royalty? That comes out to $1,548,000,000 for tanks and $30,000,000 for ammunition, a total of $1,578,000,000. Is that a deal?

~J.D. Alcanzar, Emperor
Omz222
14-03-2005, 00:44
As the Omzian Army expresses our congratulations for the designers at VA, we express our high interest in this armoured weapons system as an infantry-supporting tank unit of the next generation. Thus, with various reviews by the branches of the Omzian Forces, including the Omzian Army, the Omzian National Guard, the River of Osaria Division of the Omzian Honour Guard, and the Omzian People's Militia, we hereby request the following:

-A possible grant of a domestic production license for the OMASC Land Vehicles Division solely for the production of these vehicles for the Omzian Forces, to be produced domestically within Omz under the designation of M17 Reiter. As we estimate that a long term production run would number to about 20,000 tanks (including storage, attrition reserve, and training units within a 60-year long service life), we estimate the cost for such production license to be in the billions.

-The granting for the production licenses for the ammunitions of the 100mm ECT gun system, to be produced by the OMASC Munition Division in facilities across the Omzian nation, for use by the Omzian Forces in both combat, training, and demostration, and for storage in depots for further use.

As well, as we hope that such contract is granted, if VA is unwilling to accept the proposal in its present form, we are willing to consider other options, including the offering of aircraft technologies, access rights to sources of natural resources within Omzian soil and waters (including mines and oil rigs), and future cooperation between VA and Omzian companies and government agencies in the fields of military and civilian technologies.
Verdant Archipelago
14-03-2005, 00:51
10 million-odd dollars each for a tank, 200,000 dollars for 1,000 rounds. Hmm.
How about 150 times each price and no royalty? That comes out to $1,548,000,000 for tanks and $30,000,000 for ammunition, a total of $1,578,000,000. Is that a deal?

~J.D. Alcanzar, Emperor

I'm afraid not. We must insist on recieving a percentage of the unit price per tank produced.
Verdant Archipelago
14-03-2005, 01:00
As the Omzian Army expresses our congratulations for the designers at VA, we express our high interest in this armoured weapons system as an infantry-supporting tank unit of the next generation. Thus, with various reviews by the branches of the Omzian Forces, including the Omzian Army, the Omzian National Guard, the River of Osaria Division of the Omzian Honour Guard, and the Omzian People's Militia, we hereby request the following:

-A possible grant of a domestic production license for the OMASC Land Vehicles Division solely for the production of these vehicles for the Omzian Forces, to be produced domestically within Omz under the designation of M17 Reiter. As we estimate that a long term production run would number to about 20,000 tanks (including storage, attrition reserve, and training units within a 60-year long service life), we estimate the cost for such production license to be in the billions.

-The granting for the production licenses for the ammunitions of the 100mm ECT gun system, to be produced by the OMASC Munition Division in facilities across the Omzian nation, for use by the Omzian Forces in both combat, training, and demostration, and for storage in depots for further use.

As well, as we hope that such contract is granted, if VA is unwilling to accept the proposal in its present form, we are willing to consider other options, including the offering of aircraft technologies, access rights to sources of natural resources within Omzian soil and waters (including mines and oil rigs), and future cooperation between VA and Omzian companies and government agencies in the fields of military and civilian technologies.

The Verdant Archipelagan Trading Consortium would be more than willing to negociate the sale of production rights to the OMASC Land and Munition divisions, and would gladly accept the offer of access rights to mineral resources as a way to tie our nation's interests together and improve relations. The VATC will purchase the production rights and resell them to the OMASC in return for the mineral rights, as Krupp Armaments itself has no mining interests. Please TG us with an offer.

Bertram Swansen
Director VATC
Arribastan
14-03-2005, 01:06
I'm afraid not. We must insist on recieving a percentage of the unit price per tank produced.
Then I am afraid we cannot have a deal, for we do not pay percentages when we have purchased production rights.
Good day, sir. If you should happen to reconsider, please send a telegram.
~J.D. Alcanzar, Emperor
Omz222
14-03-2005, 01:40
As the telegram and related communications has been sent to VATC, we are glad that VA is willing to accept our proposal, and hopes to finalize the deal soon in an efficent yet beneficial manner. As we are willing to offer both the offers listed in the TG (including access to natural resources and basing rights) and a sum of monetary funds, we eagerly await for a response from VATC regarding the finalization of the deal.
Verdant Archipelago
14-03-2005, 01:44
Unlimited production rights to the BV-17 and BV-18 and related ammunition have been granted to Arribastan in exchange for $500 billion.

Efficent and benificial resolution of all situations is the fondest wish of the Verdant Archipelagan Union. The VATC is currently reviewing your offer, and will have a responce shortly.

Bertram Swansen
Director VATC
Verdant Archipelago
14-03-2005, 03:45
bump
Scandavian States
14-03-2005, 04:16
[Just a couple of things. First, it's ETC, for Electro-Thermal Chemical. Second, the maximum theoretical velocity of such a gun is 2.6 km/s, anything faster and you're going into 2020+ tech. Third, stating that such and such ETC is as powerful as such and such bigger conventional cannon is entirely too relative, and in the end it ends up as a rather fallacious argument.

What matters more is projectile weight and maximum speed, with which you can reliably predict the energy delivered in joules and then using relative conversions predict the hitting, and thus penetrating, power of a round. Of course, you then have to take into account meterials used, with an aim towards dense and strong alloys.

EDIT: I don't have my notebook with my at the moment, so I can't drag out my notes, but I remember than a DU penetrator fired from an Abrams' main gun delivers about 7 million joules of energy for 800mm of penetration on RHA. In contrast, a 105mm ETC fired at 2.6 km/s delivers 11.38 million joules for a penetration of... 1,300mm. That's far better than any Rusky 125mm cannon I've ever heard of doing.]
Verdant Archipelago
14-03-2005, 04:36
[Just a couple of things. First, it's ETC, for Electro-Thermal Chemical. Second, the maximum theoretical velocity of such a gun is 2.6 km/s, anything faster and you're going into 2020+ tech. Third, stating that such and such ETC is as powerful as such and such bigger conventional cannon is entirely too relative, and in the end it ends up as a rather fallacious argument.

What matters more is projectile weight and maximum speed, with which you can reliably predict the energy delivered in joules and then using relative conversions predict the hitting, and thus penetrating, power of a round. Of course, you then have to take into account meterials used, with an aim towards dense and strong alloys.]

Dammit... Sorry. I'm dysgraphic, I tend to mix up the order of letters and numbers... SIgh

You are quite right about the maximum velocity of that kind of gun, but consider that I am using a powder charge designed for a shell almost twice as heavy. It's possible to get shells up to 2.4 km/s without ETC firing systems by using magnum style rounds. With ETC added in addition to the larger powder charge, velocities approaching 3km/s are certainly possible.

Sorry, not a falacious argument at all. In NS it's generally assumed that similar caliber guns will fire similar massed shells unless stated otherwise. And it's also true that the diameter of the shell is much less important than the velocity when using KE weapons. So given tihat the diameter is less relevant, and the velocity of a smaller gun is USUALLY higher (smaller barrel volume takes less time to fill and requires less gas) it can be assiumed that a small magnum style gun will be at least as effective as a lower velocity, larger gun. I'm following the energy, as you suggested. Doubling the velocity doubles quadrouples the KE, while the mass doubled simply doubles the KE.

So, comparing the energy of a small ECT gun and a larger conventional gun, if you've calculated the energies (which iI have) is perfectly possible.

Edit: Interstingly, you just DID compare ETCs and conventional cannon. I simply toned down the effectiveness of the gun in my description to avoid criticism... which it seems I'm now recieving from the other side.
Scandavian States
14-03-2005, 04:37
[I just did, read my edit above.]
Verdant Archipelago
14-03-2005, 04:39
now you read MY edit =)

Also, SS, where did you get accurate figures for penetrator masses? I've been having to fudge them.
Scandavian States
14-03-2005, 04:53
[I compared the Rusky gun to your ETC because you had previously, it was to make a point. In fact, if you ask just about any person who actually bothers to get his or her facts straight, they'll tell you the average Rusky gun doesn't even begin to match up to an Abrams' 120mm. Part of it has to do with the funky burn rates of the charges and the other part has to do with inferior aerodynamics.

As for the weights, more often than not all that is given is the total mass of the shell, but if you really dig through Google you eventually come across the mass of the sabots themselves. For anything I want to make myself, I just break out the geometry and chemistry resources and get to it.]
Verdant Archipelago
14-03-2005, 04:57
[I compared the Rusky gun to your ETC because you had previously, it was to make a point. In fact, if you ask just about any person who actually bothers to get his or her facts straight, they'll tell you the average Rusky gun doesn't even begin to match up to an Abrams' 120mm. Part of it has to do with the funky burn rates of the charges and the other part has to do with inferior aerodynamics.

As for the weights, more often than not all that is given is the total mass of the shell, but if you really dig through Google you eventually come across the mass of the sabots themselves. For anything I want to make myself, I just break out the geometry and chemistry resources and get to it.]

Er, actually, if you actually read my first post, you'd notice I never compared my gun to a ruski 125mm. Ever. And I agree. the russian guns are inferior, and yes, that's largely due to inferior propellent. But... I was comparing my gun to other NS weapons, not the russians. And it's nice to know you fudge your penetrator figures too =)
Scandavian States
14-03-2005, 04:59
[*Blinks* Oh, I just assumed you were referencing the Russian guns, because it's been forever since I've seen a conventional 125mm gun on a tank. In fact, it's been at least a year, if not more.]
Verdant Archipelago
14-03-2005, 17:37
bump
Verdant Archipelago
15-03-2005, 07:56
Bump
Footpads
15-03-2005, 18:11
If the points are adressed already, consider this a bump. ;)

Ok, everyone. I'll deal with issues one at the time.

Footpads: Armour values aren't actually that over the top. This is a bit heavier than an abrams, carries a smaller engine, is slower, a smaller weapon. As well, because the VAU military is so small, we're willing to use more exotic materials in the hull of the tanks, since we have fewer to purchase.

They are a "bit" beyond what is available today, and while I have no doubt better materials and design could be made, as I will "show" the figures are almost exponentially higher here. I'm not stating that "MT" (near-future would be a better description of what is actually meant here) need to adhere to such values.

I'm having a bad conscience about allowing armour values of arounf 1400mm RHA frontallly my self...

I'll give you my "guesstimates" from the non-classified sources available to me of the M1A2.

KE threat roughly a standard tungsten compound long-rod SABOT.
CE threat roughly a standard hypersonic copper-jet HEAT round.

Turret Front KE 800mm/CE 1300mm
Turret Sides front (front 3/4) KE 300mm/CE 480mm
Turret Sides rear (rear 1/4) KE 150mm/CE 330mm
Turret Rear KE 150mm/CE 330mm

Hull Glacis KE 580mm/CE 780mm
Hull Sides KE 120mm/CE 680mm
Hull Rear KE 90mm/CE 300mm

Top/Hull Deck(average) KE 100mm/CE 200mm

As you can see the difference is there.

I think there's been a LOT of "mission creep" going on in NS over the years, so most of everything is over the top. It need to be to stay competitive. :(

Since HESH is a plastic explosive weapon, by encasing it in a thin fragmentation casing, you can get both effects, though I admit the indirect capability isn't what the tank is known for. The HESH round is guided, used mostly for bunker busting and killing light vehicles in areas the tank can't get to. And please remember, this isn't an artillery peice, it's a tank. This is a long range tank shell, not an infantry killing VT mortar bomb

Well, the comment was about the specific base-bleed round mentioned for long range/BVR fire. HESH/HEP (I do know what they are :p ) do have a place on the battlefield.

I use a similar round I call HVHESH intended mainly to strip enemy AFV from things such as AERA, active countermeasures, unbuttoned crew and such, or just as a long-range HESH against difficult targets. "Normal" HESH is still in service since the HV variant trades half its mass for velocity (and possibly a guidance package).

I might replace it with a stand-off HVFAE though, since I won't need to actually hit a vehicle with that to get the effect... still can't find a source to tell me how to disperse the dust from a supersonic dispenser without it getting dispersed though. ;)

Anyway, BTT.

I just think that basing a long-range anti-personell round on it was a less than optimal solution. IMHO you would be better of with a HE-Frag, especially if you intend to fuse it for airburst where a HESH round will act through blast only, or with a shrapnel casing blast mainly and a comparatively limited amount of shrapnel.

In artillery rounds burster mass is usually below or arpund 10-25%, the rest being casing to create shrapnel.

Just advicing. :)


Deteing the coax... is a compromise. We save a lot of room on ammunition this way, and the new metalstorm canister round does the same job. In the next version, the coax will probably be added again. Please remember, I'm not trying to make the tank the ubertanxor that pwns everything, it's an armoured vehicle that is the result of a lot of design compromises.

Yes, and I just shared my opinion on the matter of compromising the coax away.

You haven't done anything wrong by doing so, I just had to put in the by law required conservative design opinion regarding doing so. :D

And I don't think the tank is trying to be "uber" (somewhat extreme protection wise, but almost everything is that in NS), you asked for opinions, and I tossed a couple in. :)


The Macabees: Metalstorm can't be cooled easily, that's true. WHich is why we use a metalstorm system as amunition. The metalstorm launcher is 100mm in diameter, has a small charge at the back, and is filled with 5mm roiunds. When the cannister is used up, or a target requiring larger rounds turns up, the canester is discharged from the gun, and a more apropriate shell is loaded.

Is the round discarded (ejected) when unloaded? The autoloader is capable to handle cased rounds? How is environmental seal maintained while ejecting rounds or are they kept inside the vehicle (returned to the bustle fe)?

The utoloader will have a problem performing its action that fast if its juggling casings along, I just assumed you used modern combustible case or caseless rounds by default.

Combat "unloading" is today achieved by firing whatever you have up the pipe and slam in a new round, its just faster than anything else, but this specialty round may complicate things if it needs to be brought in... it seems very hard to make the entire assembly combustible.

Of course, I'm just asking since I'd be interested inthe answer if you have thought about this, I'd be glad to actually try to come up with a few possibilities with you if you want.

I'm ALSO going to reread the specifications. ;)


SB, note I didn't actually mention how long it takes to reload the autoloader? While it can get off 6 shots in twenty seconds, it takes 50 seconds to reload the thing, leaving it with an effective rate of fire of less than 6 rounds a minute.

Thats really, really low mate. :)

As you can see, the armour is in Thickness Equivelent RHA. THis is, of course, taking into account the extencive sloping, the highly effective NxRA which renders HEAT shells virtually impotent, ball and chain armour, and the ceramic applique armour that is only effective once in a certain location.

As I stated in another thread, slope only affect through increasing LOS plate thickness today, many rounds today even ignore most of the LOS increase since they "bite" and steer into the slope.

This is one reason the old Soviet/Russian cast turret is going out of fashion (the latest T-90 models uses a welded more angular turret under all that AREA), if you use an older gun such as the L7, you're actually taught to aim at the sloped part since it's where the frontal armour is at its thinnest, and the round "turns" downwards into the crew compartement.

Just a technical point regarding the description.
Footpads
15-03-2005, 18:21
The abrams has 60% of it's parts from the german LeopardA2...also..it IS in fact an european tank

And both owe a lot of their design from the German-USA MBT-70 (XM803) project.

In many ways it was more advanced than both of them, but it simply was way ahead of its time...

http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_kpz_70-a.htm
Scandavian States
15-03-2005, 18:22
[Footpads, I think you're getting confused here. The turret is never more heavily armoured than the frontal armour. And just an FYI, the frontal armour on an M1A2 SEP is 960mm, at least according to official sources.]
Footpads
15-03-2005, 18:34
Footpads, I think you're getting confused here. The turret is never more heavily armoured than the frontal armour..

The opposite is true today, the turret is OFTEN protected better than the hull, one of the reasons being the doctrine to fight hull-down as often as possible. Turrets have grown so big they have to be well-protected. Also a lot of important things are carried in there, f e most of the crew and the ammo (all of the ammo barring for the coax regarding the Abrams).

And just an FYI, the frontal armour on an M1A2 SEP is 960mm, at least according to official sources.]

You have your sources, I have mine. ;)

And who was talking about the SEP-variant wich seems to be destined to be built in a mere 50 examples? I'm also not at all sure if they ever went forward with the new-gen compound armour on any of the vehicles, but decided to focus on the network integration instead.

As for "official sources"... they are just about never right... especially about classified information. ;)

Does it specify if the protection is vs KE or CE f e?
Scandavian States
15-03-2005, 19:17
[KE. I'm fairly certain they CE protection is 1300+. Anyway, the Abrams wasn't built like that, it was built to fight the Reds in a running battle on the German planes.]
Axis Nova
15-03-2005, 19:32
Meh. Fairly solid design, but nothing really that special about it. It's just your garden-variety ETC gun carrier...
Verdant Archipelago
15-03-2005, 19:54
Quite. It simply happens to be exactly suited to my tactical style and stratigic philosophy.
Noonecares
15-03-2005, 21:16
As the dictator of Noonecares, I am in a position to authorise procurement of as small number of your tanks, around 50, in order to form the core of my nations developing armored military. I can assure you that your intellectual property is safe, and any modifications devised and performed by service personnel will be promtply reported to you for consideration for inclusion in future models. I am sad to say that at the moment my nation's economy will not support the inclusion of the Training, Maintenance, and Supply packages in the purchase price of the tanks.

If you are interested in a technology exchange for the rights to manufacture our own ammunition and generalised spare parts, my research and development teams have come up with a fairly universal unmanned submersible weapons platform with the capability to operate unassisted for short periods of two weeks. This platform is simply a hull and powerplant with basic positioning thrusters and a main propulsion plant that is rated for 25 knots, guidance is through computer control. Hull is pressure rated to no more than 100 feet. Computerised equipment packages are available in four roles:
1. Harbor Defense:
A minelaying system with eight mines (magnetic resonance or passive sonar triggers, five ton range), a complement of ten high-yield (one kiloton) anti-ship torpedos in individual launch tubes, and a last ditch ramming capability with a 400 ton charge
2. Fleet Defense:
Minelaying system replaced with 6 Exocet class anti-ship missiles, torpedo capacity expanded to twenty with 1 kiloton yield, ramming charge replaced with 4 Sea Sparrow anti-aircraft missiles linked to fleet fire control through line of sight radio
3. Survelliance:
Upgraded powerplant and main drive for sustainable 35 knots. All weapons replaced with sonar (passive and active), radar, and high-magnification cameras, includes satellite uplink for communication back to command, and has scuttling charge proven to reduce the unit to pieces nothing larger than a 20 mm round in the event of detection and capture.
4. Troop Transport:
Weapons systems replaced with underbelly reinforcement to allow for grounding, seating for 35 and space for up to 100 pounds (about 50 kilos) of gear for each. Modification available to deliver 1 light reconnaisance vehicle and seating for 20 through use of reinforced belly composite and watertight clamshell nose section available.

These units are available for a cost of $4 million in the unequipped form, add on anywhere from 1 to 5 million depending on equipment package.

As stated before, I am willing to give your nation several of these (namely 10 of package 1, 8 package 2s, 3 package 3s, and 9 package 4s, roughly $227 million value) in exchange for production rights on spare parts and munitions. I await your response to this matter.
Apothecos, Dictator of Noonecares, Member of the Tides Of War region
Footpads
15-03-2005, 22:14
[KE. I'm fairly certain they CE protection is 1300+. Anyway, the Abrams wasn't built like that, it was built to fight the Reds in a running battle on the German planes.]

"Hull down" tactics aren't limited to "defensive" or "special" warfare, you use reverse slopes and terrain for cover as much as possible at all times. if nothing else the armour will loose structural integrity after getting hit enough times (could be as few times as once). Armour "forgives" you for mistakes, but no armoured vehicle will like getting hit with AFV-scale weaponry. KE transferance in a turret struck by a SABOT may cause loss of electronics, sight alignment or the turret ring may get jammed even if there is no penetration. Sights and perhiperhals may get directly damaged, external stores destroyed and if you didn't know it the actual gun-barrel is not armoured (the gas evacuator is glass fibre with some metal tubing around f e.

You may very well become mission killed even by weapons that cannot theoretically penetrate you at all.

The hull is important to keep out of the line of fire for many reasons. Even if your armour can keep the interior of the vehicle safe, its bloody hard to protect the suspension effectively even against lightweight man portable weapons, much less against vehicleborne ones. If the enemy gets a mobility kill on you in a large scale conventional war, you are soon likely to become KK anayway through other means.

If nothing else being hull down makes you more difficult to spot...

But, there is also, and probably more importantly, a technical reason for the discrepance between hull/turret armour improvement on the Abrams (and just about every MBT of its generation).

To a great deal the difference is dependant on that that the turret has proven easier to uparmour, not least because standoff distances inside the armour itself could be increased much more.

Modern armour design rely a lot of using standoff distances, layered materials and plates as well as air gaps (usually filled with different types of foam, some with ballistic properties, others only keep water out) to induce tumble/shatter or dispersion.

Two decent sites on AFV protection levels.
http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm


Anyway, all this is a bit OT, and isn't it unfair to VA to clutter up his thread with it? ;)
Verdant Archipelago
16-03-2005, 00:12
Whew... I actually missed footpad's second post. I'll get right on answering all the objectiong.

Armour values: Yes, they are about double what is currently mounted on tanks. Note, what is currently mounted /= what is available, as I'm sure you know. Given the relatively recent boom of materials developments, I don't feel particularly sinful about my armour figures. Just look at the changes in protection values from the early versions of the M1 to the SEP... armour values have more or less doubled. This tank isn't meant to be the counterpart of tanks that are being built now, it's meant to be equivelent to tanks that COULD be built now, or in the next 5-10 years assiuming reasonable levels of infrestructure are in place. Also, these are maximum armour figures, I'd never RP the tank as being invulnerable to an SEP... in one of my RPs, you can actually see an earlier version of the tank facing off against Abramses... The SEPs lose, but that;s as much because of my superiior concentration of tanks as the superior armour.

I'm with you on the turret matter; SS, even in WWII turrets generally were more heavily armoured than the hulls.

HESH: I assumed you knew what HESH was, but not everyone else reading may =) That's a very interesting use for HESH and I may need to steal it from you, if you don't mind. As for the relative ineffectiveness... well... it's a tank, not an artillery peice, and it needs most of it's ammo storage for APDS-FS. I figured that a general purpose long range shell would be best. And I forgot to mention that we do carry thermobaric rounds too, but only regular ranged.

Coax: And I thank you for the opinion. I was merely explaining the rational behind our actions, not defending my baby tank against the ravening hordes of critics =)

METALSTORM round: No actually... we decided it would be too hard to try and unload it... when you need a different round, you fire out the canister, whether it's finished or no.

Autoloader: We really don't have the hang of autoloaders yet (first vehicle to have one) and there needs to be SOME room for improvement

Slope: Thank you, I didn't know that. Does that even go for tanks protected by very hard initial layers of ceramics that blunt the projectile's nose? And is the increased effectiveness of ERA also negligable due to the new rounds?


And doin't appologise for cluttering up my threads... I've done it to enough people before. Argue away! The more I learn the better.
Verdant Archipelago
16-03-2005, 00:16
Noonecares: Your proposal sounds interesting, but we would require production rights of our own for replacement parts if you recieved a similar deal. Could you please inform us of the acoustic properties of the UUV, information about the engine, fuel, and other specifications? We need them before we can make a decision.

Bertrum Swansen,
Director VATC
Noonecares
16-03-2005, 01:27
I am terribly sorry about omiting such information, I was slightly harassed at the time.
The UUV is approximately 50 feet long and around 10 feet wide for the base model, different packages have slightly different widths.
The powerplant for the UUV is a downsized version of the nuclear reactor found in many modern attack submarines, and produces enough power to run the linear induction motors that turn the main screws and run the computer guidance and control systems. The Surveillance package comes with a larger capacity powerplant to run the equipment and heavier duty induction motors for better speed.
The fuel for the nuclear reactors is the same as that used in many land-based powerplants, and there is only enough capacity to run for one month before refueling, so impact from accidental destruction would be minimal, similar to that of uranium or plutonium enriched HE 155 mm artillery shells.
The Troop Transport option can be outfitted with a diesel powerplant capable of up to 15,000 horsepower driving the screws through a transmission rather than risking exposure to nuclear material. The fuel tanks for this would be located in place of the shielding for the reactor, giving a range of approximately 350 miles, 700 between refuelings.
Acoustically, the UUV is comparable to a second generation nuclear attack sub from the U.S. Navy, with best performance below 15 knots submerged, up to 18 on the surface; after that degradation is noticable but not intolerable, the Surveillance package has comparable performance to a newer deisel/electric sub when running submerged at top speed. Running the diesel plant on the Troop Transport makes it acoustically similar to a small fishing vessel.

Of course production rights for spare parts would be included in the deal, as would training for the first operators and maintenance personnel; unfortunately, the specialized acoustic covering is a new formulation of rubber, plastic, and ceramics that is not entirely finalized, the units being offered have the same acoustic properties but through the use of thicker insulating coverings.
Beyond that, I am prepared to offer a significant discount to your country on the purchase of further units and will accept spent fuel from the units.
Perhaps a research and development deal could also be set up between our nations, as there are many opportunities that technicians in both countries can learn from in a deal such as this.
Footpads
16-03-2005, 03:44
I got a little delayed with this since the forum became unaccessible for me...

Whew... I actually missed footpad's second post. I'll get right on answering all the objectiong.

Armour values: Yes, they are about double what is currently mounted on tanks. Note, what is currently mounted /= what is available, as I'm sure you know. Given the relatively recent boom of materials developments, I don't feel particularly sinful about my armour figures. Just look at the changes in protection values from the early versions of the M1 to the SEP... armour values have more or less doubled. This tank isn't meant to be the counterpart of tanks that are being built now, it's meant to be equivelent to tanks that COULD be built now, or in the next 5-10 years assiuming reasonable levels of infrestructure are in place. Also, these are maximum armour figures, I'd never RP the tank as being invulnerable to an SEP... in one of my RPs, you can actually see an earlier version of the tank facing off against Abramses... The SEPs lose, but that;s as much because of my superiior concentration of tanks as the superior armour.

Well, that increase took 25 years! ;)

Your increase seems to be somewhat above a factor of 2,5 compared to the front turret of the most similar design (Merk 4), however, what I really reacted to was the top armour (wich is equal to that of a M1A2 front turret, or a sixfold increase, a reinforcement that also need to cover about 8 times (!) the area, the top is next to the bottom plate the largest surface area to armour). Unless the material development is exponential I have a hard time seeing how such a large area can get the increase without weight repercussions or reductions of mass devoted to other areas protected. Especially when you don't use lightweight reactive armour.

I can somewhat understand and accept the CE resistance in a vehicle this size, since advances made are mainly against hypervelocity liquid penetrators, but I can't really see it happening against KE, not this soon. :(

The exception to might be the electrical NERA armour the Brits are developing. But IMHO its an iffy design that might be easily countered by other means even if it works as advertised (using a precursor penetrator setting the system off, and the main penetrator hitting before the system is able to recharge the capacitators f e).


HESH: I assumed you knew what HESH was, but not everyone else reading may =)

Aww, do I really have to explain it to them? ;)

Good point. I'll make an effort to write out acronyms from now on.


That's a very interesting use for HESH and I may need to steal it from you, if you don't mind. As for the relative ineffectiveness... well... it's a tank, not an artillery peice, and it needs most of it's ammo storage for APDS-FS. I figured that a general purpose long range shell would be best. And I forgot to mention that we do carry thermobaric rounds too, but only regular ranged.

Oh, there are many similarities there is between your Reiter and my MBT141, they're both hybrid-electric drive f e... we must be reading the same literature and web sites.

I haven't borrow anything though (yet anyway) since the design predates my knowledge of yours. I've just not "published" yet, since I intend to put up a full national OOB/TOE and a complete storefront where export variants of Footpads kit as well as pure export designs are presented.

As for "stealing" HV-HESH and/or HV-HESH G, feel free to use the concept (you already have the round, just use it in another role). Can't really patent such a thing anyway... I'd be more than flattered enough if you chose to keep the acronyms as a "tag" though (High Velocity High Explosive Squash Head/HVHESH-Guided). :)

Loadouts are always mission specific, so more types aren't necessarily a problem on that level here, its more one of higher end logistics. I just thought that either an ordinary HE-frag or something else would do the job better since the HESH is actually a bit unsuitable for the job as described.


Coax: And I thank you for the opinion. I was merely explaining the rational behind our actions, not defending my baby tank against the ravening hordes of critics =)

Have rationality ever worked on grunts before? If grunts ran things we'd still use pointy sticks as weapons, what was there to improve?.

"You" eggheads will be the end if us all! ;)


Slope: Thank you, I didn't know that. Does that even go for tanks protected by very hard initial layers of ceramics that blunt the projectile's nose? And is the increased effectiveness of ERA also negligable due to the new rounds?

Modern kinetic penetrators are blunt to begin with. The pointy end on the penetrator is a ballistic cap thats there for purely aerodynamic reasons. This is one reason why they "bite" into the sloping since they just about always present a sharp "tooth" towards the material struck.

I'll try and put this as simple as I can (otherwise I won't know what I'm writing). :p

Does that even go for tanks protected by very hard initial layers of ceramics that blunt the projectile's nose?

Yes.

Now to the hard part. Why?

1; Penetrators act through focusing their energy in as small an area as is practical. That way the amount of material they need to "move out of the way" (= lower energy cost and penetrator stress) is minimized.

2; "Modern" armour (having a primitive beginning with face-hardened plates, of wich your ceramic construct would be a conceptual descendant, but mainly composite matrices ["Chobham"]) differs from what was used before in that it attempts to actually damage the penetrator instead of just resisting it. It does this by f e by using hard angled surfaces combined with softer material or even "open space" creating dissimilar resistance within the armour matrix to induce yaw wich will increase stresses on the penetrator until hopefully it fail, shatter and disperse its energy over a larger armour volume, decreasing the penetrators ability to penetrate dramatically.

So, by stressing the penetrator intentionally it can be induced to fail, or at least become less efficient.

Use of ceramics in armour matrices is not new (here in an advanced form of face-hardening). If the ceramic can't structurally defeat and shatter a high velocity penetrator directly (unlikely if its the initial contact when both energy and attitude is ideal for the penetrator) you wan't the ceramic to powder instead of shattering (powdering the ceramic rob the penetrator of a lot more of kinetic energy), if the ceramic shatter it will actually lose major protective value just after contact. It is better to slightly yaw or deflect the penetrator a bit first through a softer, more tensile material, then when the penetrator slams into the ceramic the stress induced will be much greater, and shock may cause penetrator breakup and failure.

Unless you've come up with a new ceramic that combines the hardness with a huge leap in tensile strength (probably very hard if at all possible at MT production techniques, implications in other areas would become to big to allow it IMHO).

ERA has never had any effect (or rather, have had only negligible effect on KE penetrators. This changed with third generation ERA (AERA such as Kontakt-5) wich attempts to damage kinetic penetrators by "cutting" at it with interceptor plates, i e its actually designed for it unlike earlier types of ERA wich just attempt to disrupt liquid penetrators as used by HEAT. Reaction times, fuzing and concentrating interceptor plate effectively seems due to flight speed and toughness of penetrators a bit iffy, and I've heard numbers from 10% to 40% failure rates against APFSDS. When they succed they seem to be damaging the penetrator about 300mm RHA's worth regardless of type right now (might probably due to the limited amount of information getting out).

My guess is that it is less effective right now and "hyped" a bit to build reputation and land sales. IMHO if so its mainly a matter of time before they get the thing to work though.

There are also a couple of interesting "new" types of ERA/NERA armours coming. I'm especially interested in a German one that doesn't produce shrapnel at all, and has an overpressure danger zone of only around 150mm (less than what the weapon striking the vehicle will produce), allowing troops to act in the vicinity of the vehicle so protected without added danger, but I know little of them as of now.


And doin't appologise for cluttering up my threads... I've done it to enough people before. Argue away! The more I learn the better.

Ok.

Now I'll apologize for apologizing! :D
Footpads
16-03-2005, 11:33
A little more "whining". ;)

1; Errata, in the text there is reference to a 15mm machinegun in several places, but I think you changed that into a 10mm weapon. Or are you referring to two different external guns?

2; On the "real" Merkava (wich clearly is the conceptual inspiration ;)) the "troop compartement" has room for 4 people or two stretchers and a medic (I believe, might be only one stretcher and a medic, or two stretchers and no medic). However, this compartement is not permanent, but created by removing ammunition for the main gun when the space is needed. The capability was designed more for the abilty to safely carry a small amount of supplies or evacuate casualties under high-threat conditions, or allow the infiltration of small elements under same. The capability was rather intended for "special purpose", not to turn the main vehicle into a troop transport per se. Merkava do not carry infantry as standard, even if ir has the capabilty if need be.

My point "relative" to your design is that it would most likely be hard to allow for the volumetric requirements of a permanent troop carrying capacity while still allowing for a full ammunition loadout and/or making the vehicle large enough to carry both and therefore increasing surface area needing to be armoured within the MT format (thereby increasing armour mass or decreasing overall thickness allowed by same mass). There need to be a tradeoff in internal volume use, a compromise, as shown by the Merk.

3; On hyper-velocity guns, KE projectiles will suffer dramatic losses of effectiveness (effectually they will start to act like CE penetrators) when impact velocities exceed 2200m/s. US DoD was experimenting with this sort of thing during late 1980's but cancelled the research for that and other reasons.
Intelligent Neighbors
16-03-2005, 12:57
A couple of points I'd like to bring up.

1) You have replaced the coaxial MG with a metalstorm launcher, which is a problem. Firstly, it is more expensive to build, and the ammunition more expensive. Secondly a coaxial MG has a higher rate of fire and can easily spray an area just as lethally as a metalstorm launcher. Also, the smaller MG presents much less of a target than the launcher, and is more durable and easier to replace.

2) The ATGM alarm/ERA issues.
You could have the option of mounting ERA, this would be useful in situations where there could be a tank battle (very likely in NS, with all the tank lovers). It is admittedly not so usefull with nearby infantry, but it could be applique.

The alarm is a bad idea I think. It must be loud to be heard in the middle of a warzone. This would attract a lot more attention from enemy soldiers, and therefore probably not a good idea. If your soldiers had earpieces though...
Footpads
16-03-2005, 15:00
A couple of points I'd like to bring up.

1) You have replaced the coaxial MG with a metalstorm launcher, which is a problem. Firstly, it is more expensive to build, and the ammunition more expensive. Secondly a coaxial MG has a higher rate of fire and can easily spray an area just as lethally as a metalstorm launcher. Also, the smaller MG presents much less of a target than the launcher, and is more durable and easier to replace.

He hasn't "replaced" the coax per se, he omitted it to save internal space, and instead he carry MetalStorm canister "rounds" for the main gun, not a special launcher. The round doesn't necessarily work as a HIVE or APERS round (but could if necessary) since MetalStorm would allow you to control the discharge rate completely (as you know).

I see both advantages and disadvantages.

Advantage 1; armour structural integrity is greater since there is one less hole through it.

Advantage 2; the same system can be used both as a coax and a APERS or HIVE round.

Advantage 3; Space allocated to a coax and ammunition for such can be used for main gun rounds or other stowage, allowing for flexibilty in loadout (more MS canister carried for FIBUA, less when engaging enemy tanks in a conventional land/air battle).

Disadvantage 1; Reaction times engaging targets of opportunity with the coax replacement when initially having a different type of round up the pipe are longer, and if the autoloader do not carry one of the MetalStorm rounds you're just so out of luck (the remote mount is still available though) you also loose a main gun round when switching (unloading is done by firing whatever is loaded).

Disadvantage 2; Accuracy will be lower. MetalStorm is not the most accurate firing platform available, while coaxial guns linked to the fire control system is accurate enough to almost snipe with using short bursts at range.

Disadvantage 3; Higher cost. Every time a MetalStorm canister is ejected it is defacto spent and discarded, while a coaxial machinegun is reused. While some cost may be spared by not having to make the MS canister capable of a long service life, overall costs will be higher.

This is not a practice/training cost problem since different reusable canisters can then be issued and recovered after firing, at least those that doesn't happen to be run over after being ejected. ;)

Disadvantage 4; The vehicle may be more difficult to export since it will not be able to adapt to a customers request of adding an internal coaxial machinegun without redesigning the front turret armour, something that may compromise the armour matrix unless done carefully, wich also will cost money and increase cost.

It is a viable option however, even if it in my opinion a worse one than having a true dedicated coaxial machinegun.


2) The ATGM alarm/ERA issues.
You could have the option of mounting ERA, this would be useful in situations where there could be a tank battle (very likely in NS, with all the tank lovers). It is admittedly not so usefull with nearby infantry, but it could be applique.

The alarm is a bad idea I think. It must be loud to be heard in the middle of a warzone. This would attract a lot more attention from enemy soldiers, and therefore probably not a good idea. If your soldiers had earpieces though...

Considering the way modern armed forces are pushing digital communication and integration down to the individual level that wouldn't be much of a problem (I know that the USA, Australia and Sweden are doing this or at least investigating the possibility, but there are probably many more following suit).

I'm betting that we will see infantryman helmet HUD's in actual service within 10 years (at the very least for specialists such as FAC's and AO's), as opposed to only as technology demonstrators.
Axis Nova
16-03-2005, 17:51
Machineguns are inherently inaccurate, so I'd say having a slightly lower accuracy isn't a real problem. They are spray n pray weapons, after all.
Footpads
16-03-2005, 18:09
Machineguns are inherently inaccurate, so I'd say having a slightly lower accuracy isn't a real problem. They are spray n pray weapons, after all.

If you get to fire a decent MG, you will know this isn't true, first round accuracy is pretty good, and even better when fixed as a coax is.

The "spread" mainly comes from recoil and the mechanism jolting the weapon around, but that only affects subsequent shots.

I've trained with and fired, sighted, carried, stripped and cleaned ksp 58B (FN-MAG variant), and hitting single half-figures at 300 meters (longest firing range available during heavy weapons instruction unfortunately) was no real problem at all, and I'm not exactly an expert marksman...

The accuracy for mounted weapons with heavy barrels is much greater.

Read a few AAR's regarding the use of M240B and M240G in Iraq.
Verdant Archipelago
16-03-2005, 22:16
Your increase seems to be somewhat above a factor of 2,5 compared to the front turret of the most similar design (Merk 4), however, what I really reacted to was the top armour (wich is equal to that of a M1A2 front turret, or a sixfold increase, a reinforcement that also need to cover about 8 times (!) the area, the top is next to the bottom plate the largest surface area to armour).

Ouch! I didn't realize it was quite that bad. Will revise. And yes, I'm a little nervous about the electrical armour... I'm not sure that vaporizing a projectile that's already inside the armouir is really going to improve the situation.

I'd be more than flattered enough if you chose to keep the acronyms as a "tag" though

Done and done

Armour design: Why would they use a blunt projectile with a ballistic cap instead of a pointed projectile? Wouldn't the pointed projectile be more efficient at cutting armouir? Or would the decreased strength of the projectile and be more of a liability? I also sippose that a DU bar would get erroded into a needle shape. ANd yes, I know how chobham is meant to work, it's the penitrators I'm a little shakey on. And no, I don't have a brand new ceramic... powdering it is.

As for the ERA, I read a very interesting article on something called Momentium Transfer Armour which uses concave ERA plates behind a thin layer of metal... this has a couple of advantages as I see it. First, the plate will always strike the jet at an angle, and secoindly, it sort of wraps it'self around the penetrator, robbing it of velocity, increasing the impact area, and presenting an irregular surface to thie armour face, inducing yaw. Not sure if it would actually work, but I saw (posisbly doctored) lapsed time images of a projectile being wrapped and failing at impact.

Ah, no, there's only one machinegun. A 15mm machinegun. I will hunt and destroy all references when I have time.

I didn't realize that the infantry compartment took ammunition space, unfortunately, since the literature I read made it sound like it was integral to the design. Sigh. I'll drop the ammunition capacity.

Projectiles become ineffective above 2.2km/s? I thought LOSAT had a higher velocity. In any case, that's the muzzle velocity... it'll lose velocity as it flies? Or should I have reduced charge shells for shorter ranged engagements?

Intelligent Neighbors: Deleting the coax is a calculated risk. And metalstorm has the potential to become far cheaper than mechanical weapons. It's really only going to be used for shorter ranged suppression, the AAMG will be used for countersniping.

The ERA issue is only important vs infantry because very few tank mounted AT weapoins use HEAT shells.... they are ineffective against modern armour.

The alarm, well the tank has already been seen as an ATGM is coming in, a small explosive packet is about to go off, and the ATGM when it hits is going to make an even louder noise. GIven all those noise soiurces, I doubt a BEEP is really going to give anything away.

Considering the way modern armed forces are pushing digital communication and integration down to the individual level that wouldn't be much of a problem (I know that the USA, Australia and Sweden are doing this or at least investigating the possibility, but there are probably many more following suit).

I'm betting that we will see infantryman helmet HUD's in actual service within 10 years (at the very least for specialists such as FAC's and AO's), as opposed to only as technology demonstrators.

While we do make extencive use of wireless networks, we have also invested a LOT of money in ELINT and radio direction finding (ELINT platoons are assigned at the battalion level... admitedly, we have unusually heavy battalions, but still). Equipping everone with a helmet mounted radio is a good way to call in artillery on yourself. We also don't believe in mounting equipment in the helmet unless you're also prepared to assign masseuses to each infantry company.
Duke Barol
16-03-2005, 22:31
i would like to purchase 2000 of these tanks. please telegram me with your response.
Footpads
17-03-2005, 12:19
Ouch! I didn't realize it was quite that bad. Will revise. And yes, I'm a little nervous about the electrical armour... I'm not sure that vaporizing a projectile that's already inside the armouir is really going to improve the situation.

Done and done

Somehow I also think there needs to be a new form of capacitor to store enough energy to instantly "vapourize" several kilos of tungsten and/or depleted uranium... not to mention doing it repeatedly. F e ETC guns may use material specially intended for vapourization, these substances are not.

Armour design: Why would they use a blunt projectile with a ballistic cap instead of a pointed projectile? Wouldn't the pointed projectile be more efficient at cutting armouir? Or would the decreased strength of the projectile and be more of a liability? I also sippose that a DU bar would get erroded into a needle shape. ANd yes, I know how chobham is meant to work, it's the penitrators I'm a little shakey on. And no, I don't have a brand new ceramic... powdering it is.

A "sharp point" leads to a chance of ricochet, also theres no real point (except for aerodynamics wich can be solved with a relatively lightweight ballistic cap) to have one since as you say the penetrator "sharpens" itself as it interacts with the armour. Today even (German, perhaps also Israeli) manufactured tungsten compounds are designed to be adiabatic and react the same way.

As for the ERA, I read a very interesting article on something called Momentium Transfer Armour which uses concave ERA plates behind a thin layer of metal... this has a couple of advantages as I see it. First, the plate will always strike the jet at an angle, and secoindly, it sort of wraps it'self around the penetrator, robbing it of velocity, increasing the impact area, and presenting an irregular surface to thie armour face, inducing yaw. Not sure if it would actually work, but I saw (possibly doctored) lapsed time images of a projectile being wrapped and failing at impact.

The one I hunt after uses standoff in the armour and a fibre mesh with explosive momentum (contained within the ERA mesh and therefore with the small danger area) to disrupt liquid penetrators and induce yaw in long-rods.

There's a "few" interesting things going on in ERA/NERA. If the danger space problem is solved I see a lot of AFV's adding this stuff to at least flank applique armours, theres just no reason not to (apart from possible cost/weight constraints as always though...).

Ah, no, there's only one machinegun. A 15mm machinegun. I will hunt and destroy all references when I have time.

I think theres only one edit then, because in the text the calibre is 15mm, but in the "specs" its 10 (wich would be a bit of an oddball calibre btw).

Nothing wrong with being an oddball mind you. Oddball is cool! :)

I didn't realize that the infantry compartment took ammunition space, unfortunately, since the literature I read made it sound like it was integral to the design. Sigh. I'll drop the ammunition capacity.

Do as the israelis did and make it modular, lets say you can replace 2-3 magazines for the autoloader for a seat and stowage space for a trooper (that tradeoff sounds about right to me, but its up to you). When no troops are deemed necessary, toss in the ammo again.

Projectiles become ineffective above 2.2km/s? I thought LOSAT had a higher velocity. In any case, that's the muzzle velocity... it'll lose velocity as it flies? Or should I have reduced charge shells for shorter ranged engagements?

LOSAT acts at an optimum velocity of "5000 fps" (~1500 m/s) according to official sources, but it tosses a huge penetrator. LOSAT is a sledgehammer, not a rapier.

I don't think I wrote hypervelocity penetrators become "ineffective", just that they start to become less effective against many modern armour types since they then act like a CE attack. This due to the substantially increased friction levels at hypervelocities (friction increases geometrically as velocity increases).

I'll check though, I wrote all that stuff really late... but this is what I meant. :)

So, f e, tossing a 1 gram projectile at 100000 m/s (5 megajoule) will only produce a heat spike in the armour of most AFV available today as it vaporizes a small peck in its surface.

Well... actually the penetrator would vapourize by aerodynamic friction in an atmosphere , but I think you get my point. :D

The ERA issue is only important vs infantry because very few tank mounted AT weapoins use HEAT shells.... they are ineffective against modern armour.

Personally I think ERA may get problems soon, or at least become less important than it is just now, since man-portable KKM like the CKEM (Kinetic Kill Missile and Compact Kinetic Energy Missile) are just around the corner. For top attack threat there is the EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator) wich right niw is a HEAT derivative warhead used by top-attack artillery submunitions used by systems like BONUS. These allow great standoff distances (10 meters and more) and act more like ordinare KE penetrators due to the lower speed and greater focus. They are a bit less effective energy wise than HEAT (as of now), but the way CE resistance is coming along they may yet show to be the way to go.

The alarm, well the tank has already been seen as an ATGM is coming in, a small explosive packet is about to go off, and the ATGM when it hits is going to make an even louder noise. GIven all those noise soiurces, I doubt a BEEP is really going to give anything away.

It might not even be heard by those it is intended to save. ;)

While we do make extencive use of wireless networks, we have also invested a LOT of money in ELINT and radio direction finding (ELINT platoons are assigned at the battalion level... admitedly, we have unusually heavy battalions, but still). Equipping everone with a helmet mounted radio is a good way to call in artillery on yourself. We also don't believe in mounting equipment in the helmet unless you're also prepared to assign masseuses to each infantry company.

The radio is on the harness with the computer (in the "camel hump"), all thats on the head is a either a monoclular or binocular eyepiece mounted in a headset designed to be worn with or without the helmet. (the ehadset weighs as much as an old pair of eyeglasses combined with lightweight hearing protection). The helmet is also designed around the headset of course. This system acts both as active hearing protection and a radio tranciever/reciever. The system is connected to the carried computer wich in turn is connected to the radio wich in turn is linked to the BattleNet allowing information to pass both ways (through encrypted jumping frequency digital burst transmissions of course). Nothing prevents the units from going radio silent of course, and Footpads make use of extensive EW/ECM/ECCM formations to counter surveillance, tracking and infiltration at many levels.

This isn't all, but I'm saving the especially juicy bits until my ToE/OOB release. ;)

All in all, the weight affixed to the head is not much higher than what old steel helmets with cloth covers weighed.

I ran around with an old style metal helmet and know what a bother it is, but the protection and capability would have been worth it IMHO.
The Macabees
17-03-2005, 18:51
Somehow I also think there needs to be a new form of capacitor to store enough energy to instantly "vapourize" several kilos of tungsten and/or depleted uranium... not to mention doing it repeatedly. F e ETC guns may use material specially intended for vapourization, these substances are not.


'Electric Armor' as invented by the British isn't meant to vaporize tungsten or DU rounds, it's intended to render rocket propelled grenades useless.
Duke Barol
17-03-2005, 18:55
do i have confermation to wire money
Footpads
17-03-2005, 19:34
'Electric Armor' as invented by the British isn't meant to vaporize tungsten or DU rounds, it's intended to render rocket propelled grenades useless.

More exactly its designed to disperse (or "unfocus") liquid metal penetrators. ;)

However, I remember reading that someone here on NS (don't remember who) claimed using a high power version capable of defeating ordinary solid penetrators as well, i e not exactly the same type as the Brits are developing.

I never really bothered to investigate that since I felt the idea to be "doubtful" to say the least.
Axis Nova
17-03-2005, 19:36
More exactly its designed to disperse (or "unfocus") liquid metal penetrators. ;)

However, I remember reading that someone here on NS (don't remember who) claimed using a high power version capable of defeating ordinary solid penetrators as well, i e not exactly the same type as the Brits are developing.

I never really bothered to investigate that since I felt the idea to be "doubtful" to say the least.

That would be me, the armor used was powered by the vehicle's onboard fusion reactor. I have since moved past massive armored behemoths to small and light units, so I don't use the tech any more since there's just no way to armor a unit enough to stand up to linear gun tech (which I now use)
Noonecares
18-03-2005, 11:31
any reply to my offer? or any takers for the UUV? if so, please telegram me.
Verdant Archipelago
21-03-2005, 03:15
Sorry for the slow responces people... School

Noonecares: That's a little beyond our tech, but we would definately trade production rights for the tank in exchange for help developing our own UUV project and the royalties from production. In other words, you receive the plans for the tank, but we recieve 10% of the cost of each vehicle, giving you the equivelent of a 90% discount.

Axis Novis: If you have fusion power, then virtually anything is possible

Duke Barol: We confirm your order, but caution you that given your current economic state, you may not find it possible to maintain the vehicles.

Footpads:

Sharp point- But as you said, the sharp point leads to the round biting and 'steering' into the armour. Isn't that enough justification for a sharp penetrator, or would that be an armour peircing cap like on naval shells? In that case, I can see that a decapping plate might actually be viable.

Applique: Agreed, no reason not to mount it, other than weight and cost. Biut if you can manage both of them, then slap it on. I am also intrigued by these airfoil fragments that destablize after a few meters and flutter to the ground... could be VERY useful, and lead to frag grenades being used offencively.

Velocity: So when the shell impacts at a high velocity, it acts like a jet... I can actually see that happening. Hmm. But notice my velocity is the muzzle velocity, not the impact. I suppose I could carry shells with reduiced charges for use against closer targets...

Infantry communications: I donno... it souinds very complex and heavy. remember, these are grunts, in the dirt and mud and snow. These systems are going to need to be EXTREMELY light and rugged. And you're still going to need a wireless transmitter in the helmet for the eyepeice to get information from the camelpack... or run wires doiwn the neck of the soldier, which I DON'T think she'll appriciate. And it's going to be taking up weight that could be used for food. And regardless of how much ECCM you have, with so many broadcasters, it's only a matter of time before we manage to hack your systems. Which is why we rely on weak transmissions, burst radio communications, and lasers. The infantry have battlefield cell phones and small PDAs, and commo officers have laptops... but they don't USE them, not unless there's an emergency.
Footpads
21-03-2005, 12:22
Sharp point- But as you said, the sharp point leads to the round biting and 'steering' into the armour. Isn't that enough justification for a sharp penetrator, or would that be an armour peircing cap like on naval shells? In that case, I can see that a decapping plate might actually be viable.

What? No, its the blunt face that lets the penetrator dig into the gradient. A point increase the risk of a richochet. The point I meant is created through armour interaction and not really by design, the penetrator simply assumes the form as induced by the hydrodynamic forces (the contact surface between armour and penetrator liquifies).

A modern long rod penetrator is a completely different beast from the old navy APC/APCBC rounds. :)

Velocity: So when the shell impacts at a high velocity, it acts like a jet... I can actually see that happening. Hmm. But notice my velocity is the muzzle velocity, not the impact. I suppose I could carry shells with reduiced charges for use against closer targets...

Modern APFSDS lose velocity very slowly, US M829A2 lose under 50 m/s per1000 meters I think.

Up the penetrator mass, just because the diameter of your barrel is lower you don't necesarily need to fire a smaller penetrator. Pressure levels may start to get to high though for the tube and breach though (your system might already suffer a bit from that).

I'm actually having a hard time seeing how you would get more than around 15-20 megajoule at most out of your system before pressure levels get unbearable for contemporary materials, but thats not what I'm going on about here. :)

[/QUOTE]Infantry communications: I donno... it sounds very complex and heavy.[/QUOTE]

Cell-phone tech simialr to 3G (milspec'ed and using unique software of course) using local link nodes for up-formation commo. Every soldier doesn't need a 10 or even 5 km manpack radio equivalent, those are still squad and platoon level gear (in footpads case on section, or two per 8-man squad).

I myself used to carry a 2km hand radio (less than .5kg) or a 5 km manpack (around 1.5kg). With all the displays, encryption gear, military long endurance cold resistant batteries and so on I estimate total mass for the individual system (2km) to 1kg, the section leader version (10km) around 2,5kg and platoon level (50km) around 10kg including the computer station. The operators of platoon level systems has assistants to help them lug around spare batteries and so on since they're commo specialist.

Remember, these are grunts, in the dirt and mud and snow. These systems are going to need to be EXTREMELY light and rugged. And you're still going to need a wireless transmitter in the helmet for the eyepeice to get information from the camelpack... or run wires doiwn the neck of the soldier, which I DON'T think she'll appriciate. And it's going to be taking up weight that could be used for food.

You can bash these types of systems about as much as you can a rifle today, thats why they don't weigh around 100 grams as teh cell phones do.

The typical "grunt" seems to be able to use a radio as well as anybody in my experience, but then again I myself was an Airforce grunt (RSwAF, base security doghandler). Airforce get all the smartass ones. ;)

For most combatants this is a passive system allowing swift dissemination of tactical information, communication at proper levels, and if need be above or below these.

Ergonomics and user interface have been given a lot more detail than what is "ordinary" for milspec systems.

The "wire" runs from the headset and looks a lot like an old telephone cord (similar to the earpieces used by the Secret Service f e). Nothing is actually placed in the helmet, its just designed to be worn simultaneously with the headset, wich looks like a pair of heavy-duty shades, sometimes combined with earmuffs (active hearing protection and more).

There are several IRL service helmets heavier than this system btw.

And as I said, theres more to this that I will reveal in due time. :)

And regardless of how much ECCM you have, with so many broadcasters, it's only a matter of time before we manage to hack your systems. Which is why we rely on weak transmissions, burst radio communications, and lasers. The infantry have battlefield cell phones and small PDAs, and commo officers have laptops... but they don't USE them, not unless there's an emergency.

Real time decryption? Down on a tactical (platoon-company) level?

Not likely mate. :)

As for just shooting everything transmitting with artillery, unless you can decode and ID transmitters within reasonable time (quick when the opponent know about the threat), you have to target the phantom signals as well. Then the artillery becomes so dispersed to be ineffective unless the force balance is ridiculously uneven.

The encryption architecture is modular and changing, even if you get hold of an actually dialed in radio set, it will only have valid protocols for a very short time, while at the same time ordinary safeguards as language control will be difficult to get any use out of.

"SF to CA, TI at JS +50, advice" just doesn't say much unless you're in the loop of what exactly is meant. Now, if this is happening in a warzone you have tens of thousands of transmissions per minute, probably hidden in a lot of white noise ECM and several orders of magnitude of false transmissions. Retransmissions through automated network nodes complicates thing further, where did the signal originate from f e? Coding can be switched at every node again increasing the amount of date needing decryption.

Again the decoder will be at an exponetial disadvantage to keep up.

Even if sooner or later would be true (depending on who has the advantage in decryption technology) that won't help much since intercepted data would become obsolete very fast.

If the ability to intecept and break this information that fast exist the opponent is screwed anyway since they would be forced to communicate with moped messengers and carrier pigeon. ;)
Verdant Archipelago
21-03-2005, 14:09
What? No, its the blunt face that lets the penetrator dig into the gradient. A point increase the risk of a richochet. The point I meant is created through armour interaction and not really by design, the penetrator simply assumes the form as induced by the hydrodynamic forces (the contact surface between armour and penetrator liquifies).

A modern long rod penetrator is a completely different beast from the old navy APC/APCBC rounds. :)



Modern APFSDS lose velocity very slowly, US M829A2 lose under 50 m/s per1000 meters I think.

Up the penetrator mass, just because the diameter of your barrel is lower you don't necesarily need to fire a smaller penetrator. Pressure levels may start to get to high though for the tube and breach though (your system might already suffer a bit from that).

I'm actually having a hard time seeing how you would get more than around 15-20 megajoule at most out of your system before pressure levels get unbearable for contemporary materials, but thats not what I'm going on about here. :)

Infantry communications: I donno... it sounds very complex and heavy.[/QUOTE]

Cell-phone tech simialr to 3G (milspec'ed and using unique software of course) using local link nodes for up-formation commo. Every soldier doesn't need a 10 or even 5 km manpack radio equivalent, those are still squad and platoon level gear (in footpads case on section, or two per 8-man squad).

I myself used to carry a 2km hand radio (less than .5kg) or a 5 km manpack (around 1.5kg). With all the displays, encryption gear, military long endurance cold resistant batteries and so on I estimate total mass for the individual system (2km) to 1kg, the section leader version (10km) around 2,5kg and platoon level (50km) around 10kg including the computer station. The operators of platoon level systems has assistants to help them lug around spare batteries and so on since they're commo specialist.



You can bash these types of systems about as much as you can a rifle today, thats why they don't weigh around 100 grams as teh cell phones do.

The typical "grunt" seems to be able to use a radio as well as anybody in my experience, but then again I myself was an Airforce grunt (RSwAF, base security doghandler). Airforce get all the smartass ones. ;)

For most combatants this is a passive system allowing swift dissemination of tactical information, communication at proper levels, and if need be above or below these.

Ergonomics and user interface have been given a lot more detail than what is "ordinary" for milspec systems.

The "wire" runs from the headset and looks a lot like an old telephone cord (similar to the earpieces used by the Secret Service f e). Nothing is actually placed in the helmet, its just designed to be worn simultaneously with the headset, wich looks like a pair of heavy-duty shades, sometimes combined with earmuffs (active hearing protection and more).

There are several IRL service helmets heavier than this system btw.

And as I said, theres more to this that I will reveal in due time. :)



Real time decryption? Down on a tactical (platoon-company) level?

Not likely mate. :)

As for just shooting everything transmitting with artillery, unless you can decode and ID transmitters within reasonable time (quick when the opponent know about the threat), you have to target the phantom signals as well. Then the artillery becomes so dispersed to be ineffective unless the force balance is ridiculously uneven.

The encryption architecture is modular and changing, even if you get hold of an actually dialed in radio set, it will only have valid protocols for a very short time, while at the same time ordinary safeguards as language control will be difficult to get any use out of.

"SF to CA, TI at JS +50, advice" just doesn't say much unless you're in the loop of what exactly is meant. Now, if this is happening in a warzone you have tens of thousands of transmissions per minute, probably hidden in a lot of white noise ECM and several orders of magnitude of false transmissions. Retransmissions through automated network nodes complicates thing further, where did the signal originate from f e? Coding can be switched at every node again increasing the amount of date needing decryption.

Again the decoder will be at an exponetial disadvantage to keep up.

Even if sooner or later would be true (depending on who has the advantage in decryption technology) that won't help much since intercepted data would become obsolete very fast.

If the ability to intecept and break this information that fast exist the opponent is screwed anyway since they would be forced to communicate with moped messengers and carrier pigeon. ;)[/QUOTE]

Ah, my mistake about the blunt tip. I missread your post.

I was under the impression thiere was quite a bit of penitration degridation from range... I guess I was wrong.

ANd while the diameter of the gun is smaller, and we actually do use lighter ammunition, the gun itself isn't all that much smaller than the 145mm ETC monsters other tanks sport. It is smaller... but not a lot smaller... a lot of that mass goes towards barrel reinforcements. The big advantage here is that we get the same velocity and accuracy from a shorter barrel, which means the turret motors can be smaller since the moment of inertia is smaller.

If you can really pull in the whole system in at that weight.. mazel'tov. And I wasn't casting aspersions on grunt's compitence, I was thinking more of the grunt cowering in a foxhole, chipping frozen mud out of her microphone so she can call for fire as mortars are dropping all around her.

I also never suggested that I would be able to manage realtime decryption imidiately, if ever. However, after a week or two of combat, when we have plenty of examples of your equipment and some prisoners to chemically interrogate, and hundreds of hours of recordings of your emmissions, I'd say we'd stand a decent chance of crackiing your cyphers. And no, using code in conversation will make things tricky... but again, there are prisoners, captured codebooks, mapsheets, computers... I'm not saying we'll be able to eavesdrop on everything you're saying, but we should be able to acheive local decryption in some areas siometimes, and get a stratigic picture a lot of the time.
Footpads
21-03-2005, 16:01
Ah, my mistake about the blunt tip. I missread your post.

I was under the impression thiere was quite a bit of penetration degradation from range... I guess I was wrong.

I was quite surprised by those figures when I heard about the low velocity loss of long-rods myself.

I'll see if I can dig up an article on it so you don't just have to take my word for it. it has to do with the density and low diameter of the rounds, so they have a really low drag coefficient (something they needed to penetrate armour well too).


ANd while the diameter of the gun is smaller, and we actually do use lighter ammunition, the gun itself isn't all that much smaller than the 145mm ETC monsters other tanks sport. It is smaller... but not a lot smaller... a lot of that mass goes towards barrel reinforcements. The big advantage here is that we get the same velocity and accuracy from a shorter barrel, which means the turret motors can be smaller since the moment of inertia is smaller.

Well, a never so reinforced barrel won't make a difference when the pressures erodes the barrel liner away... accuracy and fit will suffer.

But I'm not arguing about this technicality (right now anyway, we can discuss it later if you want to).

;)

If you can really pull in the whole system in at that weight.. mazel'tov. And I wasn't casting aspersions on grunt's compitence, I was thinking more of the grunt cowering in a foxhole, chipping frozen mud out of her microphone so she can call for fire as mortars are dropping all around her.

I wasn't thinking you put "grunts" down. :)

Its all about wether the capability is worth the training, effort and cost needed to implement it, and will the non-function of the system prevent operation within the force structure as a whole (i e will you be completely dependant on a "gee-whiz" system to work in a combat situation?)?

IMHO the answers are yes and hell no. :)

If the system gums up expect a higher blue-on-blue frequence and somewhat less efficient battlefield performance, but not a total structural failure.

When the machine works though, it should allow forces so equipped to outpace and "outsmart" (through better battlefield intelligence handling) enemies not so fortunate.

I also never suggested that I would be able to manage realtime decryption imidiately, if ever. However, after a week or two of combat, when we have plenty of examples of your equipment and some prisoners to chemically interrogate, and hundreds of hours of recordings of your emmissions, I'd say we'd stand a decent chance of cracking your cyphers. And no, using code in conversation will make things tricky... but again, there are prisoners, captured codebooks, mapsheets, computers... I'm not saying we'll be able to eavesdrop on everything you're saying, but we should be able to acheive local decryption in some areas sometimes, and get a strategic picture a lot of the time.

Note that this is a tactical level C3I system, there would be no problem adding several additional safety layers when going to the operational and strategic layer (f e not disseminating vital information about offensives until the last moment, keeping to "a need-to-know basis" dictats and so on). This is all about allowing a transparent system of C3I to work on a lower level, cutting through through the "fog of war" better (although definately not completely).

While any army not entirely annhilitated by the enemy will pick up on doctrine of its enemy, this won't really be substantially worsened by increasing communication on this level. The "tactical" cryptography is never intended to be indecipherable, just delaying opponent Intel interpreting whats going on for a week, a day or even a few hours "should" be more than sufficient to make the information completely obsolete.

Nor is any other kind of crypto to be completely safe, the thing is about time scale, anything that the enemy absolutely never can be allowed to figure out shouldn't be sent by radio wave.

As for "code talk", the meaning of the "codes" change with environment.

What I meant is usually something as simple as to apply letter and or numerical figures to f e landmarks, then refer to them when giving coordinates. When circulating units they may well rename the landmarks as they see fit, and when the battlefield is mobile landmarks change fast as well.

Infered information is very hard to decrypt.

Example.

"Bravo Hotel 3, Mike +50 Sierra Whiskey" may mean (Big House nr 3, +50 meters South West). This isn't exactly "code", but its damn hard for a guy in a dark room 50 klicks behind the to figure out while the information is viable even is uncoded. The encryption and burst transmitting is to not an insignificant part included just to make it harder to differ between real transmissions and "ghost" ones.

When repositioning our units we as often as not used "old" callsigns for new areas. Once we renamed the new portapotty by the same code we a day previously called a loading ramp, leading to a rather funny incident regarding a visiting officer.

He called in "priority transfer at the porta-potty"

We naturally had to answer "remember to flush!"

:D

Operational and strategic level communications and security is an altogether different ballgame, using different cryptographic gear, doctrine and methodology.
Verdant Archipelago
22-03-2005, 03:02
I was quite surprised by those figures when I heard about the low velocity loss of long-rods myself.

I'll see if I can dig up an article on it so you don't just have to take my word for it. it has to do with the density and low diameter of the rounds, so they have a really low drag coefficient (something they needed to penetrate armour well too).



Well, a never so reinforced barrel won't make a difference when the pressures erodes the barrel liner away... accuracy and fit will suffer.

But I'm not arguing about this technicality (right now anyway, we can discuss it later if you want to).

;)



I wasn't thinking you put "grunts" down. :)

Its all about wether the capability is worth the training, effort and cost needed to implement it, and will the non-function of the system prevent operation within the force structure as a whole (i e will you be completely dependant on a "gee-whiz" system to work in a combat situation?)?

IMHO the answers are yes and hell no. :)

If the system gums up expect a higher blue-on-blue frequence and somewhat less efficient battlefield performance, but not a total structural failure.

When the machine works though, it should allow forces so equipped to outpace and "outsmart" (through better battlefield intelligence handling) enemies not so fortunate.



Note that this is a tactical level C3I system, there would be no problem adding several additional safety layers when going to the operational and strategic layer (f e not disseminating vital information about offensives until the last moment, keeping to "a need-to-know basis" dictats and so on). This is all about allowing a transparent system of C3I to work on a lower level, cutting through through the "fog of war" better (although definately not completely).

While any army not entirely annhilitated by the enemy will pick up on doctrine of its enemy, this won't really be substantially worsened by increasing communication on this level. The "tactical" cryptography is never intended to be indecipherable, just delaying opponent Intel interpreting whats going on for a week, a day or even a few hours "should" be more than sufficient to make the information completely obsolete.

Nor is any other kind of crypto to be completely safe, the thing is about time scale, anything that the enemy absolutely never can be allowed to figure out shouldn't be sent by radio wave.

As for "code talk", the meaning of the "codes" change with environment.

What I meant is usually something as simple as to apply letter and or numerical figures to f e landmarks, then refer to them when giving coordinates. When circulating units they may well rename the landmarks as they see fit, and when the battlefield is mobile landmarks change fast as well.

Infered information is very hard to decrypt.

Example.

"Bravo Hotel 3, Mike +50 Sierra Whiskey" may mean (Big House nr 3, +50 meters South West). This isn't exactly "code", but its damn hard for a guy in a dark room 50 klicks behind the to figure out while the information is viable even is uncoded. The encryption and burst transmitting is to not an insignificant part included just to make it harder to differ between real transmissions and "ghost" ones.

When repositioning our units we as often as not used "old" callsigns for new areas. Once we renamed the new portapotty by the same code we a day previously called a loading ramp, leading to a rather funny incident regarding a visiting officer.

He called in "priority transfer at the porta-potty"

We naturally had to answer "remember to flush!"

:D

Operational and strategic level communications and security is an altogether different ballgame, using different cryptographic gear, doctrine and methodology.

That seems... overly complex. Wouldn't you want to use similar communications protocals in different units so they can talk to each other? If the command squad of a company gets hit by an 8" shell (not impossible in NS), the rest of the unit is going to need to be able to talk to the other companies in the battalion, otherwise all their fancy gear is worth nothing. There's a tradeoff, as you no doubt know, between security and efficiency; unless the other units in your army know what you're talking about, using code is really irrelevent.

What you suggested eariler, having nodes change the code for relaying across longer distances... that sounds like a recipe for disaster... it means that your small units aren't going to be able to understand what's happening. From what I've read, (you obviously have a great advantage over me in experience, I'm merely an amature military historian preparing to become a professional one) the biggest advantage to such technology is knowing that you aren't cut off and isolated when the shit hits the fan. If different units are using different cyphers and codes... then simply by taking out the nodes, we've eliminated any advantage your system gives you. Since the nodes will be broadcasting with signifigantly higher power levels than other units, it shouldn't be terribly hard to nail them with an ARM or even blanket them with jamming. One thing you have to remember is this is NS, not real life. Very few people will admit that someone is more technically advanced than them, and when that happens, it usually ends up with an ignore... which means you'll be going up against folks with similar communications sophistication.

Now... don't get me wrong. We use a VERY similar system.. it's just not integral to the uniforms. But I feel that people tend to overemphasis the effectiveness of their communications.

Barrel errosion? It's a problem we all have to deal with... especially since ETC guns are the rule now, rather than the exception. I seriously considered not mounting one... but it would put me at too much of a disadvantage. We've got a rather nice vehicle for replacing turrets in the feild though, so barrel damage won't be a terrible issue.
Footpads
22-03-2005, 16:25
That seems... overly complex. Wouldn't you want to use similar communications protocals in different units so they can talk to each other? If the command squad of a company gets hit by an 8" shell (not impossible in NS), the rest of the unit is going to need to be able to talk to the other companies in the battalion, otherwise all their fancy gear is worth nothing. There's a tradeoff, as you no doubt know, between security and efficiency; unless the other units in your army know what you're talking about, using code is really irrelevent.

We are talking about two rather different things here, for one the communication at lower level (section, squad, platoon and company, perhaps batallion) and higher level (brigade, corps, calling air or artillery strikes and so on). To be able to chatter above the "low" level you need not only equipment (a radio) but also liasion training. If you lack the training you will be more dangerous than is acceptable trying to call artillery f e.

In the is the largest force structure I've worked within (BasBat90, or "base batallion 90", essentially a mobile airfield) it was no big deal getting "nick names" for objectives and landmarks spread through the unit. This was done by simple word of mouth to avoid leaking "chatter" that can be caught up on by listening "bad guys". The system used was developed when using a completely unencrypted radio system, so awareness of people listening in was always necessary. it wasn't dropped just because encrypted radios started to appear, protocols may always become compromised.

Of course my type of unit was semi-stationary, so need was high and difficulty low. I can easily understand if company/batallion chatter for a mobile formation is less convoluted to save time.

It can still be darn hard to understand exactly wich house is referred to as "Tawny Brick" (especially if it refers to a street) instead of Bravo Hotel f e. ;)


What you suggested eariler, having nodes change the code for relaying across longer distances... that sounds like a recipe for disaster... it means that your small units aren't going to be able to understand what's happening.
From what I've read, (you obviously have a great advantage over me in experience, I'm merely an amature military historian preparing to become a professional one) the biggest advantage to such technology is knowing that you aren't cut off and isolated when the shit hits the fan. If different units are using different cyphers and codes... then simply by taking out the nodes, we've eliminated any advantage your system gives you. Since the nodes will be broadcasting with signifigantly higher power levels than other units, it shouldn't be terribly hard to nail them with an ARM or even blanket them with jamming. One thing you have to remember is this is NS, not real life. Very few people will admit that someone is more technically advanced than them, and when that happens, it usually ends up with an ignore... which means you'll be going up against folks with similar communications sophistication.

Now... don't get me wrong. We use a VERY similar system.. it's just not integral to the uniforms. But I feel that people tend to overemphasis the effectiveness of their communications.

Encryption is real time and the "nodes" act like mobile phone relays (just instead of transmitting it encrypted through ground lines, it retransmits it through the airwaves). If one breaks you may loose connection (likely not since back ups are supposed to abound), but even then nothing prevents you from "dialing up" again unless everything is out of range.

Even then its not hard to use the SatPhone. ;)

The "nodes" can be the plt level 10km radios, vehicle radios or company level commo. Higher up they can be specialist commo vehicles using tight beam microwave links.

This is actually just about what is done today, I've just dumped an encrypted digital radio with a messenger service in the lap of every "grunt", and added 3G capability for the more sophisticated systems.

The "camels hump" (aka CamelBak) isn't integral to the "uniform", its originally an attachement to the loadbearing harness normally used to carry water.

http://www.camelbak.com/mil/military.cfm

In my "version" I replace some of the water carrying capacity with a pouch for the radio and computer. The reciever and tranciever is placed in the shoulder straps (can be folded up to increase gain), while the batteries and a small computer with about the same capability of a PDA is placed in the hump with a small control box carried on the (left/right, whichever suits the wearer) front harness strap.

Of course arctic units use a different "hump" since carrying water like that would leech quite a bit of body heat. ;)

My goals with this are to allow as much communication as possible (the limiting factor here is Homo Sapiens Sapiens), create great redundancy, allow a hard to quickly intercept, decrypt and infiltrate communications structure as well as explore the possibilities of personal encrypted digital communication gear.

If munchkinism will prevent me from RP'ing this, thats just to bad. I feel no great need to RP with those anyway. I'm hoping for people who actually know what they're doing to be my "enemies". ;)

In fact, my first priority may not be to RP with this at all, I'm mainly amused by creating an OOB, ToE and doctrine. :(

Barrel errosion? It's a problem we all have to deal with... especially since ETC guns are the rule now, rather than the exception. I seriously considered not mounting one... but it would put me at too much of a disadvantage. We've got a rather nice vehicle for replacing turrets in the feild though, so barrel damage won't be a terrible issue.

ETC will actually wear barrels less relative to their power than conventional gas expansion propellants (the overall pressure as compared to the energy produced is usually lower due to the combustion being controlled over time), the problem is the overall pressure level, and that is dependant on the energy created in the tube volume of the barrel (ie, you can get the same energy at a lower pressure if the barrel volume is greater).

The higher the pressure the more wear on the barrel, and the more it erodes.

As for replacing entire turrets, aim for quickly switching barrels instead (turret replacements can still come in handy, but are rather unnecessary just for this).

Its also easier and more practical to carry a larger number of spare barrels than spare turrets (were talking large numbers since the entire force need to be resupplied now and then, I'm not saying you necessarily have a big problem).

Live fire training will also become more expensive.
Verdant Archipelago
23-03-2005, 06:59
We are talking about two rather different things here, for one the communication at lower level (section, squad, platoon and company, perhaps batallion) and higher level (brigade, corps, calling air or artillery strikes and so on). To be able to chatter above the "low" level you need not only equipment (a radio) but also liasion training. If you lack the training you will be more dangerous than is acceptable trying to call artillery f e.

In the is the largest force structure I've worked within (BasBat90, or "base batallion 90", essentially a mobile airfield) it was no big deal getting "nick names" for objectives and landmarks spread through the unit. This was done by simple word of mouth to avoid leaking "chatter" that can be caught up on by listening "bad guys". The system used was developed when using a completely unencrypted radio system, so awareness of people listening in was always necessary. it wasn't dropped just because encrypted radios started to appear, protocols may always become compromised.

Of course my type of unit was semi-stationary, so need was high and difficulty low. I can easily understand if company/batallion chatter for a mobile formation is less convoluted to save time.

It can still be darn hard to understand exactly wich house is referred to as "Tawny Brick" (especially if it refers to a street) instead of Bravo Hotel f e. ;)



Encryption is real time and the "nodes" act like mobile phone relays (just instead of transmitting it encrypted through ground lines, it retransmits it through the airwaves). If one breaks you may loose connection (likely not since back ups are supposed to abound), but even then nothing prevents you from "dialing up" again unless everything is out of range.

Even then its not hard to use the SatPhone. ;)

The "nodes" can be the plt level 10km radios, vehicle radios or company level commo. Higher up they can be specialist commo vehicles using tight beam microwave links.

This is actually just about what is done today, I've just dumped an encrypted digital radio with a messenger service in the lap of every "grunt", and added 3G capability for the more sophisticated systems.

The "camels hump" (aka CamelBak) isn't integral to the "uniform", its originally an attachement to the loadbearing harness normally used to carry water.

http://www.camelbak.com/mil/military.cfm

In my "version" I replace some of the water carrying capacity with a pouch for the radio and computer. The reciever and tranciever is placed in the shoulder straps (can be folded up to increase gain), while the batteries and a small computer with about the same capability of a PDA is placed in the hump with a small control box carried on the (left/right, whichever suits the wearer) front harness strap.

Of course arctic units use a different "hump" since carrying water like that would leech quite a bit of body heat. ;)

My goals with this are to allow as much communication as possible (the limiting factor here is Homo Sapiens Sapiens), create great redundancy, allow a hard to quickly intercept, decrypt and infiltrate communications structure as well as explore the possibilities of personal encrypted digital communication gear.

If munchkinism will prevent me from RP'ing this, thats just to bad. I feel no great need to RP with those anyway. I'm hoping for people who actually know what they're doing to be my "enemies". ;)

In fact, my first priority may not be to RP with this at all, I'm mainly amused by creating an OOB, ToE and doctrine. :(



ETC will actually wear barrels less relative to their power than conventional gas expansion propellants (the overall pressure as compared to the energy produced is usually lower due to the combustion being controlled over time), the problem is the overall pressure level, and that is dependant on the energy created in the tube volume of the barrel (ie, you can get the same energy at a lower pressure if the barrel volume is greater).

The higher the pressure the more wear on the barrel, and the more it erodes.

As for replacing entire turrets, aim for quickly switching barrels instead (turret replacements can still come in handy, but are rather unnecessary just for this).

Its also easier and more practical to carry a larger number of spare barrels than spare turrets (were talking large numbers since the entire force need to be resupplied now and then, I'm not saying you necessarily have a big problem).

Live fire training will also become more expensive.

Please note, I have no real objection to what you're putting forward. What I object to is the fact that you automatically assume that your enemies will be unable to deal with your jamming and communicaitons protocols. It's a form of godmodding.

If your radios can simply switch to a different node when their first one is desroyed, that means that the nodes must have a library of encryption protocols.

As for the barrel replacements... so dialing back on the powder charge would be more effective at reducing wear. Hmm. And yes, we replace barrels, but in the field, it may be easier to replace the whole turret than removing the barrel. I'd think that THAT operation shoiuld be done in a special workshop... or am i out to lunch. What I was thinking is switch the turret with the new one in the field, fly the turret back to base, replace the barrel, and trade it with a second tank.
Footpads
23-03-2005, 14:14
Please note, I have no real objection to what you're putting forward. What I object to is the fact that you automatically assume that your enemies will be unable to deal with your jamming and communicaitons protocols. It's a form of godmodding.

Hmm, I don't remember actually making that claim (apart from real time decryption of an earlier uncompromised system is really unlikely, this is true not just for "my" system mind you).

I've even stated that the encryption merely slows breaking the system down, and is implemented not least because it makes differing between "real" signaling and spoofs (the amount of spoof signals can be different, but lets say 90% of transmissions can be assumed to be false). This leads to a relative work overload for a comparatively sophisticated enemy.

The US Navy used to cypher even their orders for toilet paper with the highest level of encryption, since this led to listeners having a harder time to decide wich to decipher first.

On an even playing field, its more difficult to quickly decypher and ID a spoof or irrelevant message than it is to create one, you need a big technological advantage in computer technology just to keep up.

Nowhere have I stated that it is impossible to defeat this or any other system, I'm just highlighting some of the difficulties.

This is however quickly developing into a complex "how does it really work" encryption thread, and I have neither the time nor the actual knowledge to get into this, I'm just juggling a few concepts around here.

I'm not claiming it is or should be regarded as "special", I'm just going to try and show a few implementations and uses of the "BattleNet" concept in my upcoming doctrine.

Now, whats really revolutionary thinking regarding Footpads take on commo is that the third language taught in schools is sign-language. All we need for LOS commo is a pair of binos. ;)


As for the barrel replacements... so dialing back on the powder charge would be more effective at reducing wear. Hmm.

Well, lower pressure=less wear, but that wasn't what I meant.

ETC-type propellant can be combusted in a controlled fashion, reducing the initial pressure spike (and induced wear) that normal gas expansion create.

So, at similar power levels, ETC-guns wear less on their tubes.


And yes, we replace barrels, but in the field, it may be easier to replace the whole turret than removing the barrel. I'd think that THAT operation shoiuld be done in a special workshop... or am i out to lunch. What I was thinking is switch the turret with the new one in the field, fly the turret back to base, replace the barrel, and trade it with a second tank.

In real life you can in most armies change gun tubes at the batallion workshop, which is mobile (it goes into the field with the batallion).

Turret change is usually performed at the regimental (for RCT's), brigade or divisional workshops, most often the tank is however sent to the rear if this needs to be done.

Gun tubes do not only wear, they are also one of the most battle-damage susceptible parts of a tank (close second to the tracks/suspension). You will find need for a lot more barrels than you will for entire turrets.

Modern tanks are made with field replacement of gun tubes in mind.

Also, carrying large numbers of spare turrets along doesn't seem logistically feasible. You could probably squeeze in at least 20-30 gun tubes in the same transport that could take ONE whole turret.

Real life barrels have life spans counted in hundreds of rounds (low hundreds for Eastern barrels, high hundreds for Western), and your system must work at higher pressure levels just to achieve similar energy.

Not stating that you can't do anything about this (materials technology, controlled combustion over time and so on), just stating physical facts, overall pressure is higher since the working volume is smaller while you wish a total increase in working energy. Using the same systems in a larger bore barrel will allow you even higher energy totals.

I found it simpler to just use a big tube (cant carry as many rounds, but it lets me chuck a "bigger" crowbar or pack of explosives)

But, I'm not saying or implying that you should go big bore too. :)